I heard a few years back that geologists found water marks in the high mountains that showed there had been a tremendous flood of high escalation. Is this true, or does anyone have proof that the high mountain water marks that spread all throughout the mountains where it supposedly took place, may not be related to the flood at all? I'm curious to hear what you guys have to say.
-
By water marks, they meant marks of water that has been around for a long enough time to leave an impression strong enough that is still detectable today. Like deposits of calcium or dead stuff from long-gone bodies of water.
How is this possible? One culprit is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tecto…
The constant movement of tectonic plates allows for continents and land masses to move quite a bit around with time, causing lake, and ocean floors to become mountains, and, similarly, mountains to be submerged. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_S… .
Now, remember that, to prove something conclusively, you need to show that a condition is both necessary and sufficient to support a hypothesis.
Thus, to prove that the Great flood did in fact exist, you would need to illustrate that, not only would the Great flood cause "water marks" in the mountain, but also that the water marks could not have been caused by anything else, but the Great flood.
Of course, the problem is that you can't. There could be many ways to explain such "water marks", like tectonic plate movement, which is, unlike a religious theory, is observable.
So, this is where it gets interesting and the TV program finishes with a "proof".
Except that their proof only illustrates that reality has nothing to do with facts. After all, in a democratic society, the most widespread delusion is fact.
How is this possible? One culprit is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tecto…
The constant movement of tectonic plates allows for continents and land masses to move quite a bit around with time, causing lake, and ocean floors to become mountains, and, similarly, mountains to be submerged. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_S… .
Now, remember that, to prove something conclusively, you need to show that a condition is both necessary and sufficient to support a hypothesis.
Thus, to prove that the Great flood did in fact exist, you would need to illustrate that, not only would the Great flood cause "water marks" in the mountain, but also that the water marks could not have been caused by anything else, but the Great flood.
Of course, the problem is that you can't. There could be many ways to explain such "water marks", like tectonic plate movement, which is, unlike a religious theory, is observable.
So, this is where it gets interesting and the TV program finishes with a "proof".
Except that their proof only illustrates that reality has nothing to do with facts. After all, in a democratic society, the most widespread delusion is fact.
-
It sounds like you perhaps heard a piece about so-called super-tsunamis. Seems that Lituya Bay in Alaska had some really odd shore lines, where the trees had been knocked back for half a kilometer vertically. No one believed that anything could reach that high within the bay, so they were a mystery. In 1958 they discovered that landslides in the then end of the bay did indeed cause flooding that high along the shores.
12
keywords: Proof,that,or,true,false,great,was,flood,the,Proof that the great flood was true or false