Science and the Bible: Insect Legs

[DLH]

There is a great deal of evidence for the Biblical global deluge but if you're looking for Biblical attribution science isn't the place to do that. Rightfully so.

You are wrong. There is no evidence for a global flood that inundated the planet in recent history (tens of thousands of years). Such a flood would have left indelible evidence in the geologic column, and the bottleneck caused by a single mating pair of each animal species transported to safety on a magic boat would have similarly left an indelible mark on their genetic makeup. We would see this evidence everywhere and we don't. Therefore, we can safely rule out the Biblical story of the planetary flood as a work of fiction, or perhaps an exaggeration of a much smaller local event.

Does everything have to have evidence? And if so, what evidence do you have that there is no evidence of something you say could never have happened? Do you see? You only appeal to an authority. And how can you know that you don't see evidence everywhere and just don't know it or more likely, won't accept it. Local floods. What nonsense. What about local fires? Do we see myths about global fires that are really only local fires? Science minded people always justify their uncertainty with illogical assumptions.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Does everything have to have evidence? And if so, what evidence do you have that there is no evidence of something you say could never have happened? Do you see?

What you've just said is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[WAB]

By the way, I caught the What's Up, Doc? reference. Hilarious movie.

 

[NoHolyCows]

There is a great deal of evidence for the Biblical global deluge but if you're looking for Biblical attribution science isn't the place to do that. Rightfully so.

You are wrong. There is no evidence for a global flood that inundated the planet in recent history (tens of thousands of years). Such a flood would have left indelible evidence in the geologic column, and the bottleneck caused by a single mating pair of each animal species transported to safety on a magic boat would have similarly left an indelible mark on their genetic makeup. We would see this evidence everywhere and we don't. Therefore, we can safely rule out the Biblical story of the planetary flood as a work of fiction, or perhaps an exaggeration of a much smaller local event.

Does everything have to have evidence? And if so, what evidence do you have that there is no evidence of something you say could never have happened? Do you see? You only appeal to an authority. And how can you know that you don't see evidence everywhere and just don't know it or more likely, won't accept it. Local floods. What nonsense. What about local fires? Do we see myths about global fires that are really only local fires? Science minded people always justify their uncertainty with illogical assumptions.

Yes, everything that makes a truth claim requires evidence. That is how we separate reality from myth. If a global flood happened, it would have left overwhelming, undeniable evidence in geology, archaeology, and genetics. That evidence does not exist.

The burden of proof is not on others to disprove an event that lacks supporting evidence. It is on the one making the claim to provide verifiable proof. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood depositing a single, uniform sediment layer across all continents, nor is there evidence of a genetic bottleneck from all animal species repopulating from a handful of survivors just a few thousand years ago. These are testable claims, and they fail when measured against reality.

Local floods are observed, recorded, and supported by physical evidence. Massive regional floods, like those from melting Ice Age glaciers, have left clear traces in sediment deposits and topography. But a flood covering the entire Earth is absent from the record. Mythology is full of fire-related destruction, but no one claims a literal worldwide fire consumed all life. The comparison is flawed.

Ignoring evidence or dismissing the need for it does not strengthen an argument. Truth withstands scrutiny, and belief without evidence is not knowledge.

NHC

 

[DLH]

What you've just said is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

And why is that? You don't have any evidence that there was never a global flood. So, you dismiss it. Without evidence. Because there is no evidence. But there is.

• https://www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html
• https://www.astronomy.com/science/ancient-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world-with-no-dry-land/
• https://blog.sci-nature.com/2024/11/ancient-earth-may-have-been-water-world.html
• https://www.youtube.com/@TheRandallCarlson

 

[pood]

There is a great deal of evidence for the Biblical global deluge but if you're looking for Biblical attribution science isn't the place to do that. Rightfully so.

You are wrong. There is no evidence for a global flood that inundated the planet in recent history (tens of thousands of years). Such a flood would have left indelible evidence in the geologic column, and the bottleneck caused by a single mating pair of each animal species transported to safety on a magic boat would have similarly left an indelible mark on their genetic makeup. We would see this evidence everywhere and we don't. Therefore, we can safely rule out the Biblical story of the planetary flood as a work of fiction, or perhaps an exaggeration of a much smaller local event.

Does everything have to have evidence? And if so, what evidence do you have that there is no evidence of something you say could never have happened? Do you see?

No, we don’t “see.” The above statement is asinine.

You only appeal to an authority

No, YOU appeal to authority — your Holy Babble. He appeals to evidence. He’s a scientist — something of no interest to you, apparently, since you have devoted yourself for more than 30 years to studying a book of fairy tales that you mistakenly believe to be true stories.

. And how can you know that you don't see evidence everywhere and just don't know it or more likely, won't accept it. Local floods. What nonsense. What about local fires? Do we see myths about global fires that are really only local fires? Science minded people always justify their uncertainty with illogical assumptions.

Whjat a hoot.

 

[pood]

What you've just said is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

And why is that? You don't have any evidence that there was never a global flood.

We have a TON of evidence that there was never a global flood, and NO evidence that there was.

So, you dismiss it. Without evidence. Because there is no evidence. But there is.

• https://www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html
• https://www.astronomy.com/science/ancient-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world-with-no-dry-land/
• https://blog.sci-nature.com/2024/11/ancient-earth-may-have-been-water-world.html
• https://www.youtube.com/@TheRandallCarlson

The rules say you must summarize what a video is about.

 

[pood]

Just did a search on The Cosmic Summit. It’s a jamboree of loons and a confederacy of dunces, the latter borrowed from Swift. and also the title of a great satiric novel that I believe won the Pulitzer Prize.

 

[pood]

A report about the 2024 Cosmic Summit.

We have a perfect version of ourselves imprinted in our cells that we can only access with a $30,000 machine sold by a couple. Guaranteed to heal absolutely everything, from anxiety to ADHDS to cancer. The pyramids were built by aliens. Water is a form of mind control because of fluoridation. The core of the earth is pure water, the purest water, except for the mountains of North Carolina, which are actually sleeping dragons and the heart of one of them containers the purest water of all. Etc.

 

[DLH]

Yes, everything that makes a truth claim requires evidence.​

Everything has evidence. There is evidence for or against.
​

That is how we separate reality from myth.​

No, it isn't. Not that we are terribly good at that anyway. Evidence and reality are subjective.
​

If a global flood happened, it would have left overwhelming, undeniable evidence in geology, archaeology, and genetics. That evidence does not exist.​

Assumptions aren't evidence. If there is no evidence, you can only assume. To say I believe a global flood is possible or not possible is subjective, not objective.
​

The burden of proof is not on others to disprove an event that lacks supporting evidence.​

The burden of proof doesn't exist in science or theology. When people say the burden of proof what they mean is the current consensus, subject to change. And subjective. Those people think evidence is proof. It isn't. You can't prove what you had for lunch in that you can't demonstrate with absolute certainty, but you can provide evidence for or against having something for lunch specifically. The thing is, just because you know what that something was with near absolute certainty doesn't mean you can prove it. Proof and evidence are just argument and belief. You don't have a burden of proof outside of argument and belief. Like Jesus allegedly said, is written to have said: you are well to have faith, but the demons know and yet shudder.

If science and theology doesn't prove or disprove, then there is no such burden of proof. What the people who say that really mean, whether they have the sense to know it or not, is that you have to convince them, and they aren't actually willing to allow that. So, it's a meaningless facade.
​

It is on the one making the claim to provide verifiable proof. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood depositing a single, uniform sediment layer across all continents, nor is there evidence of a genetic bottleneck from all animal species repopulating from a handful of survivors just a few thousand years ago. These are testable claims, and they fail when measured against reality.​

Yes, there is evidence. I gave links and a video of that evidence from science above in post #25.

The problem with science is the same problem with religion. John Cleese said that people need to be reminded that science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. When science becomes the dogma of people with a pathological narrow mindedness science becomes stagnant, easily corruptible. It's no longer science. That is why I find the battle of science vs religion arrogant, dogmatic and silly. It's a battle of conformity which isn't conducive to knowledge, it's conducive to dogma. For most of the history of humanity people who "thought" that God had the answers for mankind when all they really wanted was to be God. The only thing that has changed is that they now want to do the same with science for the same reason resulting in nothing new. No new knowledge just the same old ignorance. It isn't God's fault and it isn't the fault of science. It isn't God and it isn't science.

Saying that you have evidence and saying that you have proof is only saying, in reality, that you think you might know something.

Faith never has the burden of proof. I don't have the burden of proof to convince you of what I believe. I believe that there was a global flood. You believe that there wasn't.
​

Local floods are observed, recorded, and supported by physical evidence. Massive regional floods, like those from melting Ice Age glaciers, have left clear traces in sediment deposits and topography. But a flood covering the entire Earth is absent from the record. Mythology is full of fire-related destruction, but no one claims a literal worldwide fire consumed all life. The comparison is flawed.​

The video I posted above which I've linked to in this post is about a minute long. Watch it. If there was a global flood today there wouldn't be much evidence at all of it 4 thousand years from now. If there were survivors all they would have 4 thousand years later is the myth. And they would ignore that due to their arrogance at their own peril.
​

Ignoring evidence or dismissing the need for it does not strengthen an argument. Truth withstands scrutiny, and belief without evidence is not knowledge.​

I'm not suggesting that, are you? You don't need to justify your investigation. I don't treat my Bible like a storybook, I treat it like a dictionary. I love my Bible and my dictionary. I investigate words because even when I think I know words and their meanings I always learn something new. For example, justify is defined by the dictionary as to show or prove to be right or reasonable. In theology to declare righteous in the sight of God and in printing to adjust (a line of type or piece of text) so that the print fills a space evenly or forms a straight edge at one or both margins.

This post, is justified but it doesn't concern itself with being right in the sight of God. It follows John 3:17 in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which reads: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ". The Greek verb ginosko basically means “to know,” and here the verb is used in the present tense to express continuous action. Ignorance isn't new if it is continuous and knowledge isn't intelligence if it is dogmatic. In the sight of my God, Jehovah, I embrace ignorance for what it is.

My critics will love that but miss the point as always. But they don't do science, they read about it. I don't do God I read about it.

​

 

[NoHolyCows]

Yes, everything that makes a truth claim requires evidence.​

Everything has evidence. There is evidence for or against.
​

That is how we separate reality from myth.​

No, it isn't. Not that we are terribly good at that anyway. Evidence and reality are subjective.
​

If a global flood happened, it would have left overwhelming, undeniable evidence in geology, archaeology, and genetics. That evidence does not exist.​

Assumptions aren't evidence. If there is no evidence, you can only assume. To say I believe a global flood is possible or not possible is subjective, not objective.
​

The burden of proof is not on others to disprove an event that lacks supporting evidence.​

The burden of proof doesn't exist in science or theology. When people say the burden of proof what they mean is the current consensus, subject to change. And subjective. Those people think evidence is proof. It isn't. You can't prove what you had for lunch in that you can't demonstrate with absolute certainty, but you can provide evidence for or against having something for lunch specifically. The thing is, just because you know what that something was with near absolute certainty doesn't mean you can prove it. Proof and evidence are just argument and belief. You don't have a burden of proof outside of argument and belief. Like Jesus allegedly said, is written to have said: you are well to have faith, but the demons know and yet shudder.

If science and theology doesn't prove or disprove, then there is no such burden of proof. What the people who say that really mean, whether they have the sense to know it or not, is that you have to convince them, and they aren't actually willing to allow that. So, it's a meaningless facade.
​

It is on the one making the claim to provide verifiable proof. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood depositing a single, uniform sediment layer across all continents, nor is there evidence of a genetic bottleneck from all animal species repopulating from a handful of survivors just a few thousand years ago. These are testable claims, and they fail when measured against reality.​

Yes, there is evidence. I gave links and a video of that evidence from science above in post #25.

The problem with science is the same problem with religion. John Cleese said that people need to be reminded that science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. When science becomes the dogma of people with a pathological narrow mindedness science becomes stagnant, easily corruptible. It's no longer science. That is why I find the battle of science vs religion arrogant, dogmatic and silly. It's a battle of conformity which isn't conducive to knowledge, it's conducive to dogma. For most of the history of humanity people who "thought" that God had the answers for mankind when all they really wanted was to be God. The only thing that has changed is that they now want to do the same with science for the same reason resulting in nothing new. No new knowledge just the same old ignorance. It isn't God's fault and it isn't the fault of science. It isn't God and it isn't science.

Saying that you have evidence and saying that you have proof is only saying, in reality, that you think you might know something.

Faith never has the burden of proof. I don't have the burden of proof to convince you of what I believe. I believe that there was a global flood. You believe that there wasn't.
​

Local floods are observed, recorded, and supported by physical evidence. Massive regional floods, like those from melting Ice Age glaciers, have left clear traces in sediment deposits and topography. But a flood covering the entire Earth is absent from the record. Mythology is full of fire-related destruction, but no one claims a literal worldwide fire consumed all life. The comparison is flawed.​

The video I posted above which I've linked to in this post is about a minute long. Watch it. If there was a global flood today there wouldn't be much evidence at all of it 4 thousand years from now. If there were survivors all they would have 4 thousand years later is the myth. And they would ignore that due to their arrogance at their own peril.
​

Ignoring evidence or dismissing the need for it does not strengthen an argument. Truth withstands scrutiny, and belief without evidence is not knowledge.​

I'm not suggesting that, are you? You don't need to justify your investigation. I don't treat my Bible like a storybook, I treat it like a dictionary. I love my Bible and my dictionary. I investigate words because even when I think I know words and their meanings I always learn something new. For example, justify is defined by the dictionary as to show or prove to be right or reasonable. In theology to declare righteous in the sight of God and in printing to adjust (a line of type or piece of text) so that the print fills a space evenly or forms a straight edge at one or both margins.

This post, is justified but it doesn't concern itself with being right in the sight of God. It follows John 3:17 in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which reads: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ". The Greek verb ginosko basically means “to know,” and here the verb is used in the present tense to express continuous action. Ignorance isn't new if it is continuous and knowledge isn't intelligence if it is dogmatic. In the sight of my God, Jehovah, I embrace ignorance for what it is.

My critics will love that but miss the point as always. But they don't do science, they read about it. I don't do God I read about it.

​

Claiming that “everything has evidence” is misleading. Not all claims have equal evidence, and not all evidence is equally valid. We separate reality from myth by applying rigorous testing, repeatability, and falsifiability. The idea that evidence and reality are subjective is a misunderstanding of the scientific process. Science is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for distinguishing what is real from what is not.

A global flood would have left overwhelming and undeniable geological, archaeological, and genetic markers. These do not exist. There is no single, uniform global sediment layer from such a flood. The fossil record does not show a mass extinction followed by a sudden, simultaneous repopulation of species. Genetic evidence contradicts a recent bottleneck of all life. These are testable claims, and they fail when compared to observable reality.

Dismissing this as an “assumption” ignores the burden of proof. The person making the claim that an event happened is responsible for providing evidence of it. No amount of philosophical wordplay changes that. Science is not a belief system—it is a method of inquiry that self-corrects through evidence and falsifiability. When new evidence emerges, science adjusts. When evidence contradicts a claim, the claim is rejected. This is the opposite of dogma.

The attempt to undermine science by comparing it to religion is a false equivalency. Science is not built on faith but on testable and repeatable observations. Theories like gravity, evolution, and plate tectonics are not accepted because people “believe” in them; they are accepted because they consistently explain and predict natural phenomena. A global flood, on the other hand, has no supporting physical evidence and contradicts known geological processes.

The argument that “if a flood happened today, little evidence would remain after 4,000 years” is a deflection. Local floods do leave evidence—massive regional floods from melting Ice Age glaciers, for example, have left unmistakable marks on the landscape. A global flood would be even more obvious, yet no such evidence exists.

Faith does not require proof, but when faith makes a historical claim, it must be tested like any other claim. A global flood is not just a theological idea; it is a scientific claim about history, and it fails every test. Ignoring the lack of evidence does not strengthen the argument—it only highlights that the belief is held despite the evidence, not because of it.

NHC

 

[EricH]

There is a great deal of evidence for the Biblical global deluge but if you're looking for Biblical attribution science isn't the place to do that. Rightfully so.

You are wrong. There is no evidence for a global flood that inundated the planet in recent history (tens of thousands of years). Such a flood would have left indelible evidence in the geologic column, and the bottleneck caused by a single mating pair of each animal species transported to safety on a magic boat would have similarly left an indelible mark on their genetic makeup. We would see this evidence everywhere and we don't. Therefore, we can safely rule out the Biblical story of the planetary flood as a work of fiction, or perhaps an exaggeration of a much smaller local event.

Does everything have to have evidence?

You just said there is great deal of evidence. I literally quoted your post where you said that.

And if so, what evidence do you have that there is no evidence of something you say could never have happened?

I've told you about the evidence. If the story of the Biblical flood was true, we would see evidence of this event in the geologic column and in the genetic records of animals alive today. We have looked. We drill holes every day for different purposes like geologic surveys, soil exploration for new engineering projects, archaeologic surveys by scientists and so on. Millions and millions of records from all over the world and not one shred of evidence for the flood. Not one site anywhere in the world where the fossil records suggests that the Bible story might be true. Not one site!! We have sequenced the genomes of thousands of animals, again, with zero evidence of any bottlenecks supporting the Bible story. Not only is there no evidence for the flood, there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible flood story is not true, to the point where we can safely rule out this story as being true within any reasonable bounds of certainty.

Do you see? You only appeal to an authority. And how can you know that you don't see evidence everywhere and just don't know it or more likely, won't accept it. Local floods. What nonsense. What about local fires? Do we see myths about global fires that are really only local fires? Science minded people always justify their uncertainty with illogical assumptions.

I am not appealing to authority. I am referencing hard data that virtually anyone with internet access can go look at for themselves. The United States Geological Survey publishes geologic maps and cross sections of the Earth's crust using the data from many tens of thousands of deep borings they have investigated. Similarly, you can find archives of the genome sequences of many animals alive today, if you were to make the effort. Much of this data is available in the public domain and available for free or for a small fee since the underlying work was done with public funds. And that is just in the US. Most developed nations have similar programs. We have looked. You are the person appealing to the authority of the Bible without any supporting evidence and then accusing us of this bad behavior.

 

[steve_bank]

A report about the 2024 Cosmic Summit.

We have a perfect version of ourselves imprinted in our cells that we can only access with a $30,000 machine sold by a couple. Guaranteed to heal absolutely everything, from anxiety to ADHDS to cancer. The pyramids were built by aliens. Water is a form of mind control because of fluoridation. The core of the earth is pure water, the purest water, except for the mountains of North Carolina, which are actually sleeping dragons and the heart of one of them containers the purest water of all. Etc.

Sounds like the Scientology and the E Meter, sold for a lot of money to the believers.You could build one for around $20 back in the 90s.

 

[EricH]

Watch it. If there was a global flood today there wouldn't be much evidence at all of it 4 thousand years from now. If there were survivors all they would have 4 thousand years later is the myth.

This is absurd. Beyond absurd. A global extinction event today would leave a mark on this planet that would be easily identifiable hundreds of millions of years from today. All those buried cities. All those buried structures. All that hard evidence of civilization. We have found widespread evidence of an extinction event from 65 millions years ago all over the planet, and there was no civilization at that time. And yet there is no evidence of a global flood, much, much more impactful that a puny meteor impact 65 MYA, just a few thousand years ago? Absurd!

Your claim is so obviously absurd that I have a hard time taking you seriously or believing you to be a credible source. Any reasonable person living in the developed world today with access to education and the internet would call you out on this nonsense.

 

[pood]

Watch it. If there was a global flood today there wouldn't be much evidence at all of it 4 thousand years from now. If there were survivors all they would have 4 thousand years later is the myth.

This is absurd. Beyond absurd. A global extinction event today would leave a mark on this planet that would be easily identifiable hundreds of millions of years from today. All those buried cities. All those buried structures. All that hard evidence of civilization. We have found widespread evidence of an extinction event from 65 millions years ago all over the planet, and there was no civilization at that time. And yet there is no evidence of a global flood, much, much more impactful that a puny meteor impact 65 MYA, just a few thousand years ago? Absurd!

Your claim is so obviously absurd that I have a hard time taking you seriously or believing you to be a credible source. Any reasonable person living in the developed world today with access to education and the internet would call you out on this nonsense.

He as to believe it. He said he has invested more than 30 years studying the bible, which would be fine as a scholarly exercise in comparative mythology, but he believes that what he studies in the literal history of the world. It’s the sunk cost fallacy. He can’t give up now — to do so would be to admit to himself that he has wasted a gigantic chunk of his life on nonsense.

 

[steve_bank]

Back after the Indianan Ocean earthquake caused tsunami somebody was interviewer on island that got flooded.

He said there was an old cultural myth on the island about god sendinga flood to periodically cleanse the world. Part of it was a waning, when water recedes suddenly from the shore run to high ground.

Which he did.

An old cultural myth based in long past island history of tsunamis. Of course being limited in global awareness they imagined it as a greater global flood.

watched a show on Noah. There are possible ancient sources of the tale. Webdesign on barge or ship with family and cargo swept out to sea in a 100 year scale storm.

There is a potential Garden Of Eden. It was not just a Jewish myth., A candidate is an area in the Mid East that was green in the past.

 

[EricH]

Watch it. If there was a global flood today there wouldn't be much evidence at all of it 4 thousand years from now. If there were survivors all they would have 4 thousand years later is the myth.

This is absurd. Beyond absurd. A global extinction event today would leave a mark on this planet that would be easily identifiable hundreds of millions of years from today. All those buried cities. All those buried structures. All that hard evidence of civilization. We have found widespread evidence of an extinction event from 65 millions years ago all over the planet, and there was no civilization at that time. And yet there is no evidence of a global flood, much, much more impactful that a puny meteor impact 65 MYA, just a few thousand years ago? Absurd!

Your claim is so obviously absurd that I have a hard time taking you seriously or believing you to be a credible source. Any reasonable person living in the developed world today with access to education and the internet would call you out on this nonsense.

He as to believe it. He said he has invested more than 30 years studying the bible, which would be fine as a scholarly exercise in comparative mythology, but he believes that what he studies in the literal history of the world. It’s the sunk cost fallacy. He can’t give up now — to do so would be to admit to himself that he has wasted a gigantic chunk of his life on nonsense.

There was a great flood that killed all living things and buried all the civilizations that existed. And nobody noticed, except for a small tribe of people living in the Middle-East. Ridiculous!

 

[steve_bank]

Missoula floods - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Missoula floods (also known as the Spokane floods, the Bretz floods, or Bretz's floods) were cataclysmic glacial lake outburst floods that swept periodically across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Gorge at the end of the last ice age. These floods were the result of periodic sudden ruptures of the ice dam on the Clark Fork River that created Glacial Lake Missoula. After each ice dam rupture, the waters of the lake would rush down the Clark Fork and the Columbia River, flooding much of eastern Washington and the Willamette Valley in western Oregon. After the lake drained, the ice would reform, creating Glacial Lake Missoula again.

These floods have been researched since the 1920s. During the last deglaciation that followed the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, geologists estimate that a cycle of flooding and reformation of the lake lasted an average of 55 years and that the floods occurred dozens of times over the 2,000 years between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago. U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Jim O'Connor and Spain's Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales scientist Gerardo Benito have found evidence of at least twenty-five massive floods, the largest discharging about 10 cubic kilometers per hour (2.7 million m³/s, 13 times that of the Amazon River).[1][2] Alternate estimates for the peak flow rate of the largest flood range up to 17 cubic kilometers per hour.[3] The maximum flow speed approached 36 meters/second (130 km/h or 80 mph).[3]

The silt that was left is the basis for Eastern Washington agriculture and wine grapes.

There is glacial flooding going on in Pakistan, catastrophic for villages and small towns. Higher temps melts ice forming glasci9err lakes. They periodically burst.
Any number of natural floods less tan a global flood could haveinspired flood myths.

There is no geological evidence of a global flood. If it were true when the waters went someplace else the surface would have been devastated and Noah and company would have starved. The smell of rotting plants, humans, and animals would have been overwhelming.

 

[pood]

God sent great flood to impress Jodie Foster

 

[NoHolyCows]

DLH,

The argument that the burden of proof does not exist in science or theology is fundamentally flawed. The burden of proof is a foundational principle in both logical argumentation and empirical investigation. It states that whoever makes a claim—especially one that contradicts established knowledge—must provide verifiable evidence to support it. Without this principle, there would be no way to separate truth from falsehood.

Saying that the burden of proof is merely about “current consensus” and is “subject to change” misrepresents how knowledge works. Consensus forms because of overwhelming evidence, not the other way around. The burden of proof is not subjective; it applies equally to any claim, regardless of its popularity. If a claim is made that challenges existing knowledge, it must present evidence strong enough to overturn what is already established. Otherwise, we could claim anything—alien civilizations secretly ruling the Earth, gravity being a hoax, or that the moon is made of cheese—and dismiss all challenges by saying there is no burden of proof.

The idea that people confuse “evidence” with “proof” is misleading. In science, absolute proof is not required—but sufficient, reproducible evidence is. While mathematics operates with absolute proof, science relies on an accumulation of evidence that reaches a level of certainty where doubt is unreasonable. The claim that “you can’t prove what you had for lunch” confuses certainty with probability. If you have a receipt from a restaurant, security footage, or multiple eyewitnesses confirming your meal, then the evidence overwhelmingly supports your claim. Science works in the same way—it builds a case using testable, repeatable observations until the probability of error becomes negligible.

Equating proof and evidence with “just argument and belief” is incorrect. If that were true, then medicine, engineering, and physics would all be based on arbitrary opinion rather than demonstrable reality. Yet planes fly, surgeries succeed, and gravity continues to function—not because of belief, but because of principles confirmed through rigorous testing and evidence. The laws of physics and chemistry are not “beliefs”; they are confirmed through experimentation and observation.

The claim that “if science and theology don’t prove or disprove, then there is no burden of proof” is also false. Science routinely disproves claims by testing them against evidence. If an idea is tested and found to be incorrect, it is discarded. Theology does not operate on scientific proof, but when it makes historical or scientific claims—such as the claim of a global flood—it must be subject to the same evidentiary standards. A belief may not require proof, but a claim about reality does.

Saying that people just “want to be convinced but aren’t willing to allow that” is a misrepresentation. People accept claims when they are backed by sufficient evidence. If evidence for a global flood or Noah’s Ark were found and verified, scientists and historians would change their views. The reason these claims are rejected is not bias, but because they fail against physical evidence. If a person claims to have a winning lottery ticket, they must present the ticket. If they refuse to show it but insist that others must disprove its existence, their claim is meaningless.

The burden of proof is real, necessary, and inescapable. It ensures that knowledge is built on demonstrable reality rather than unverified claims. The attempt to dismiss it is an evasion tactic to avoid accountability for unsupported assertions. The truth withstands scrutiny, and beliefs that lack evidence remain just that—beliefs, not knowledge.

NHC