Why the Fossil Record Can't Be Due To Noah's Flood

[EarlyActs]

Agreed.

I can't seem to make a link to this original TB2 line, but my reaction is why bother studying something so fundamentally disrupted. Downstream from here, you can't tell us about layers and make arguments because they were violently disrupted.

I was reminded of this in SE AK when trying to find the depth of sediment in a channel and the chart showed a layer of material (sulphur?) slanting up like everything else here but jambed in out of nowhere. Geologic record yes, but it is like the patent office in Dickens' LITTLE DORRIT. Not worth reading! Maybe that is why there is wisdom to the succinct 'the fountains of the great deep burst open.' To explain further is folly.

 

[TB2]

Maybe that is why there is wisdom to the succinct 'the fountains of the great deep burst open.'

Which is NOT a reference to tectonic processes!

 

[TB2]

But see the issue of latency in oral transmission etc.

That doesn't change the argument. That's actually an argument in support of my point, because the oral traditions were still anachronistic and Post-Flood. The fact that the Pre-Flood Tigris River is identified in relation to a Post-Flood city that the readers would understand is problematic for flood geology

 

[EarlyActs]

Which is NOT a reference to tectonic processes!

Once again you split up a seamless picture. You don’t make those conclusions for people TB but you can supply an argument.

 

[EarlyActs]

That doesn't change the argument. That's actually an argument in support of my point, because the oral traditions were still anachronistic and Post-Flood. The fact that the Pre-Flood Tigris River is identified in relation to a Post-Flood city that the readers would understand is problematic for flood geology

No I see the opposite. They didn’t take time to specify and your sample field is too small.

If there was a reference from before and the rivers flowed afterward in the same place, they just didn’t have descriptions of it being filled. Waste of time with all the relocated sediment right there in the picture too, which is what happened in that violent year.

 

[TB2]

No I see the opposite. They didn’t take time to specify and your sample field is too small.

If there was a reference from before and the rivers flowed afterward in the same place, they just didn’t have descriptions of it being filled. Waste of time with all the relocated sediment right there in the picture too, which is what happened in that violent year.

There are biblical arguments and scientific arguments against the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. This a biblical argument based on what the Bible says. Genesis 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to the Post-Flood ancient capital city of Assyria, Ashur whose ruins are still visible today. I agree with you that the accounts would be retrospective Post-Flood looking back. But that's what makes the argument even stronger, because the Pre-Flood Tigris River is being identified in relation to a Post-Flood city the readers/hearers would know in their day, and identifies the same Tigris River known to us today as the river east of Ashur.

*But far important than what I think and far more important than what you think, is what *they* in biblical times would have thought it was referring to. And the Pre-Flood Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referred to Post-Flood by the same name. It takes a fair amount of special pleading and mental gymnastics to avoid the very obvious, straightforward understanding of the text.

INDEED, for thousands of years that is how it's been understood: the Pre-Flood Tigris & Euphrates and Post-Flood Tigris & Euphrates are one in the same. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. There is NOTHING in the Bible to indicate that entirely different rivers (with the same names!) are being referred to and if that's true, then that makes God a poor communicator for making it so unclear. So unclear that for thousands of years people have got it wrong until recently.

But here's the 'SMOKING GUN': the fact that no one ever questioned that the Pre-Flood Tigris & Euphrates Rivers & Post-Flood Tigris & Euphrates Rivers referred to in the Bible are one in the same UNTIL ONLY ABOUT SIXTY OR SO YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE RIVERS ARE UNDERLAIN BY 5-6 MILES OF FOSSIL RECORD IS THE DEAD GIVE AWAY. This sudden backpedaling and hemming and hawing and mental gymnastics and excuse making for why we should now suddenly reject the clear understanding of the Bible that has been accepted for thousands of years IS ONLY FOR ONE REASON: TO SAVE A MODERN DAY THEORY AND ASSUMPTION THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD IS DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD.

14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates"

Ruins of Ashur, ancient capital of Assyria

 

[EarlyActs]

There are biblical arguments and scientific arguments against the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. This a biblical argument based on what the Bible says. Genesis 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to the Post-Flood ancient capital city of Assyria, Ashur whose ruins are still visible today. I agree with you that the accounts would be retrospective Post-Flood looking back. But that's what makes the argument even stronger, because the Pre-Flood Tigris River is being identified in relation to a Post-Flood city the readers/hearers would know in their day, and identifies the same Tigris River known to us today as the river east of Ashur.

*But far important than what I think and far more important than what you think, is what *they* in biblical times would have thought it was referring to. And the Pre-Flood Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referred to Post-Flood by the same name. It takes a fair amount of special pleading and mental gymnastics to avoid the very obvious, straightforward understanding of the text.

INDEED, for thousands of years that is how it's been understood: the Pre-Flood Tigris & Euphrates and Post-Flood Tigris & Euphrates are one in the same. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. There is NOTHING in the Bible to indicate that entirely different rivers (with the same names!) are being referred to and if that's true, then that makes God a poor communicator for making it so unclear. So unclear that for thousands of years people have got it wrong until recently.

But here's the 'SMOKING GUN': the fact that no one ever questioned that the Pre-Flood Tigris & Euphrates Rivers & Post-Flood Tigris & Euphrates Rivers referred to in the Bible are one in the same UNTIL ONLY ABOUT SIXTY OR SO YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE RIVERS ARE UNDERLAIN BY 5-6 MILES OF FOSSIL RECORD IS THE DEAD GIVE AWAY. This sudden backpedaling and hemming and hawing and mental gymnastics and excuse making for why we should now suddenly reject the clear understanding of the Bible that has been accepted for thousands of years IS ONLY FOR ONE REASON: TO SAVE A MODERN DAY THEORY AND ASSUMPTION THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD IS DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD.

14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates"

Ruins of Ashur, ancient capital of Assyria

 

[EarlyActs]

What is the material point of this? I have seen things like this go one way one year, and another way another. I know it is difficult to write about, but I totally fail to see the slam dunk you see , and for the same reason: They are locating it afterwards. So what?

The Abrahamic tribe came from Persia and this is like an aside about a certain location they may not have known before, but could recall from that journey west. So what?

Why does this one thing arrest the whole concept?

 

[TB2]

What is the material point of this? I have seen things like this go one way one year, and another way another. I know it is difficult to write about, but I totally fail to see the slam dunk you see , and for the same reason: They are locating it afterwards. So what?

The Abrahamic tribe came from Persia and this is like an aside about a certain location they may not have known before, but could recall from that journey west. So what?

Why does this one thing arrest the whole concept?

The 'smoking gun/dead give away' is that the Bible has been interpreted the same way on this for thousands of years and only in recent times has this changed and only because it conflicts with YEC flood geology assumptions. In other words, a long held biblical understanding has been changed *in response to science*--- to force fit the Bible to modern science

WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐----------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5 miles of fossil record sediment.

*Counterargument: The usual reply to this is that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers in Genesis 2 (Pre-Flood) are not the same rivers as the (Post-Flood) Tigris and Euphrates Rivers referenced later in Genesis.

Problems with this Counterargument: (1) There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that two entirely different rivers (with the same names) are being referred to. (2) Genesis 2 identifies the (Pre-Flood) Tigris River with reference to (Post-Flood) Asshur (ancient capital of Assyria). (3) It is a completely ad hoc counterargument only proposed in order to try to save the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. (4) The straightforward, literal understanding of Scripture that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referring to the same rivers throughout Scripture (and not different rivers by the same name) was never questioned until recently in modern times, when oil drilling in the Middle East revealed that the Tigris & Euphrates are underlain by >5 miles of fossil record

 

[EarlyActs]

The 'smoking gun/dead give away' is that the Bible has been interpreted the same way on this for thousands of years and only in recent times has this changed and only because it conflicts with YEC flood geology assumptions. In other words, a long held biblical understanding has been changed *in response to science*--- to force fit the Bible to modern science

WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐----------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5 miles of fossil record sediment.

*Counterargument: The usual reply to this is that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers in Genesis 2 (Pre-Flood) are not the same rivers as the (Post-Flood) Tigris and Euphrates Rivers referenced later in Genesis.

Problems with this Counterargument: (1) There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that two entirely different rivers (with the same names) are being referred to. (2) Genesis 2 identifies the (Pre-Flood) Tigris River with reference to (Post-Flood) Asshur (ancient capital of Assyria). (3) It is a completely ad hoc counterargument only proposed in order to try to save the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. (4) The straightforward, literal understanding of Scripture that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referring to the same rivers throughout Scripture (and not different rivers by the same name) was never questioned until recently in modern times, when oil drilling in the Middle East revealed that the Tigris & Euphrates are underlain by >5 miles of fossil record

Please be clear. Don't use pronouns in a summary statement!!!
the Bible has been interpreted the same way on this
what is this?

And your two sentences crash into each other: in one the Bible is made to fit a YEC view. In the next it has been made to fit modern science. What do you mean?

Please fix this and do not post the same thing for the 5th time. Get help. Get an editor, but please don't post the same thing again.

If you knew what you were talking about, you could say it 10 ways, really.

 

[TB2]

what is this?

What are you not understanding?

 

[EarlyActs]

What are you not understanding?

That was incomplete, see the new/edited post.

 

[CrowCross]

One of the first points made in the book is the same one I started the thread with. This one (the diagram is from the book too).

I'm not saying you haven't responded. To your credit you have responded to this multiple times. But do you see how your responses haven't yet solved the problem? We agreed that Post-Flood cities will be on the surface of the earth on top of the fossil record if flood geology is true. But Gen 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to a Post-Flood city on the surface of the earth (on top of the fossil record). Do you see how that is still an unsolved problem for flood geology?

Sorry. Nope.
I'm past that argument. Moved on as the explanation has already been given. You can keep arguing it if you want to.

 

[TB2]

Sorry. Nope.
I'm past that argument. Moved on as the explanation has already been given. You can keep arguing it if you want to.

You have NOT solved the problem, so you have NOT debunked the argument.

 

[TB2]

Please be clear. Don't use pronouns in a summary statement!!!
the Bible has been interpreted the same way on this
what is this?

And your two sentences crash into each other: in one the Bible is made to fit a YEC view. In the next it has been made to fit modern science. What do you mean?

Please fix this and do not post the same thing for the 5th time. Get help. Get an editor, but please don't post the same thing again.

If you knew what you were talking about, you could say it 10 ways, really.

Did you not read the first post in the thread on page 1???

 

[EarlyActs]

Did you not read the first post in the thread???

Yes and I have no idea why you think this Case Terminal or what ever. It's is as though the Bible has been turned inside out to you and the Devil is Yahweh or something, and I cannot tell why.

If you knew your material, you could put it 10 ways and probably by the 3rd I would see the problem.

I have a book explaining the actual replacement theology issue that exists in Gal 3:17. A whole book worth of background. You are throwing up sometime that seems to be just as world-changing, but I have no idea why.

Add a couple sentences that crash into each other and its gone even further!

 

[EarlyActs]

But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today,

This is just stupid. The fossil record could be the result of Noah's flood and the rivers could be on top of it. Because water keeps coming down streams and water seeks the lowest elevation it can. No brainer.

 

[TB2]

Yes and I have no idea why you think this Case Terminal or what ever. It's is as though the Bible has been turned inside out to you and the Devil is Yahweh or something, and I cannot tell why.

If you knew your material, you could put it 10 ways and probably by the 3rd I would see the problem.

I have a book explaining the actual replacement theology issue that exists in Gal 3:17. A whole book worth of background. You are throwing up sometime that seems to be just as world-changing, but I have no idea why.

Add a couple sentences that crash into each other and its gone even further!

What are you talking about??? What don't you understand??? Genesis 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to the Post-Flood ancient capital city of Assyria, Ashur whose ruins are still visible today. If YEC flood geology is true, then the Pre-Flood Tigris River should be buried underneath 5-6 miles of fossil record instead of being on the surface of the earth *on top* of the fossil record. I don't know why you're having difficulty understanding. Everyone else understands the point of the argument, even those who disagree with it.

 

[TB2]

But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today,

This is just stupid. The fossil record could be the result of Noah's flood and the rivers could be on top of it. Because water keeps coming down streams and water seeks the lowest elevation it can. No brainer.

No, it's not stupid. Your statement is nonsensical. Do you know nothing of deposition? If the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood, the garden of Eden isn't going to magically float to the too, but would be buried under 6 miles of sediment.

 

[EarlyActs]

btw, there is no necessary connection between YEC and the cataclysm. Myself am a RCW believer: recent creation week, on a older object. I'm not sure how old, and would not put that in the category of other objects around space because of the implication that it might have been for the confinement of rebellious entities.