WorldNetDaily: Proof of the Biblical Flood

Buffoon Award

Once again, dear reader — we visit the website of WorldNetDaily (WND). As you know, WND was an early Buffoon Award Winner. We’ve described them as a flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. It’s in their honor that our jolly Buffoon logo adorns this post.

They just posted Science confirms Genesis Flood account, again, and above that headline, in red, it says WND EXCLUSIVE. You can’t find this anywhere else! It has no author’s byline, like their last astounding article on the Flood — see WorldNetDaily: Noah Had a Cell Phone. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

For the first time, scientists have corroborated with direct evidence that the Earth has oceans of water deep within mantle by actually recovering some trapped inside diamonds. While at least three recent studies have found evidence to support the theory, what few scientists are noting is that the discovery of actual droplets of the water hundreds of miles deep below the Earth’s surface corroborates what the Bible said in the Genesis Flood account, note Christians who have been following the latest research.

They’re talking about this research reported at PhysOrg: Diamond inclusions suggest free flowing water at boundary between upper and lower mantle. The paper was published in Science: Ice-VII inclusions in diamonds: Evidence for aqueous fluid in Earth’s deep mantle. You can’t read it without a subscription, but the abstract says:

The transition zone is a region where the stable minerals have high water storage capacity. The inclusions suggest that local aqueous pockets form at the transition zone boundary owing to the release of chemically bound water as rock cycles in and out of this region.

Okay, back to WND. They say that this discovery holds “some world-shaking ramifications”:

That scientists might want to reconsider their skepticism of the biblical Great Flood account in Genesis 7:11, which said the waters broke through the surface of the Earth when “all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Most scientists discount the notion that the Earth was ever flooded, despite the fact that 71 percent of the surface is covered by water today.

Ooooooooooooh! After that they quote one of ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists:

“It is ironic that secularist scientists are still seeking to explain where the Earth’s water came from,” Andrew Snelling, Ph.D geologist from Australia and director of research for Answers in Genesis, told WND. “For many years now, they have endeavored to fill in the difficult-to-explain pieces of their ‘story’ about how our home Earth ‘just happened’ to become so habitable for life over the course of its supposed billions-of-years history. Secularists believe the Earth condensed from clumpy matter flung out of the solar nebula 4.56 or so billion years ago. It was thus originally a hot, molten blob that cooled. They used to suggest that most of the water came from inside this cooling Earth, but not enough to fill the oceans we have on the Earth’s surface today. A once popular theory was that comets (which are essentially large, dirty snowballs) collided with the Earth and deposited their water on its surface.”

WND continues:

But that explanation could not possibly explain oceans of water deep beneath the surface of the planet. With the new evidence for just that, a new explanation was needed.

And they quote the AIG creation scientist again:

“Of course, these same secularists and Bible skeptics say, as predicted in 2 Peter 3:3-6, that there never was a global flood on the Earth, even though it is still 70 percent covered in water, which averages more than two miles deep,” writes Snelling. “But ironically, they also say that, due to the many evidences of massive water erosion on Mars, there was a watery flood ‘of Biblical proportions’ on that planet in the past, even though that planet’s surface is dry today!”

“The Bible’s description of that outbursting event is merely confirmed by the latest findings of the secular scientists,” he writes. “So, the waters that came from inside the Earth, combined with the waters in the original, created oceans to produce the Genesis Flood.”

Exciting, huh? Let’s read on:

Pastor Mark Biltz, the man who discovered the “Blood Moons” phenomenon … called the earlier reports of the massive water supplies within the Earth “fantastic news.”

“Over and over again science is finally catching up to the Bible,” Biltz said. “The Bible says in the Book of Daniel that in the last days knowledge will be increased. Well, it seems the scientific community is waking up more and more to the truths of the Bible.”

Ooooooooooooh! Amazing, isn’t it? WND goes on and on, but we’ll quit here. Their article has over 100 excited comments from their drooling readers. What do you think of this, dear reader?

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Proof of the Biblical Flood

  1. Apparently their god, capable of creating whole galaxies of planets, could not create the water needed for their Great Flood and uncreated when his anger subsided. Apparently all he can do is create rainbows under such conditions.

    So, these “Christians” are struggling to show where Yahweh/Jesus got the water? Jeeze, magic, dude, magic!

  2. We’re just lucky they didn’t discover Ice 9.

  3. And the volume of the inclusions is – microliters? The problem with “fountains of the deep” is that they would require collapse of overburden which would yield no net sea level rise. Atmospheric precipitation would give a much greater rise – perhaps a full inch.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Snelling – as long as you are quoting the Bible to contrast your flood with science, might I suggest Matthew 7:1-5?

  5. Yes! the flood and the “Blood moon prophecy” are both equally true. Wait nothing came out of the eclipse tetrad? Sounds more like all Mark Biltz “discovered” how to make hot air and noise.

  6. Mike Elzinga

    Following up on Les Lane’s observation; there is a set of calculations that can be done by high school physics students that, apparently, not one creationist can do. The least energetic scenario is the “canopy theory” of the flood in which all the water comes from outer space. The rate of energy deposited in the Earth’s atmosphere comes out to be 1.6×10^8 watts per square meter; about 40 kg of TNT per square meter going off every second over the entire surface of the Earth for 40 days and nights. The temperature of the atmosphere rises to about 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit and the atmospheric pressure goes to about 850 atmospheres in less than a week.

    Furthermore, the “fountains of the deep” scenario is much more energetic and requires the spewing of superheated steam into the atmosphere as well as the energy required to dig out ocean basins and pile up continents. That’s a lot of rapid rock breaking and melting in order to do this within 40 days.

    Not only is that wooden ark physically impossible to build and make seaworthy, nothing, not even that ark, would be left on the Earth’s surface.

    YECs are notable for their inability to do simple math; Notice that they never give ratios or percentages. What is the ratio of the amount of water to all the other materials the make up the Earth? YECs can’t do that calculation; it is far too difficult for them, even for their “PhDs.”

    The irony is that YECs apparently feel a need to have a “science” support their presuppositions. That suggests that they are at least subliminally aware of the fact that their presuppositions are total BS.

  7. “YECs are notable for their inability to do simple math”
    Rather unwilling. When math seems to confirm their predetermined conclusions they suddenly are pretty good at it.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Eventually they will resort to miracles, so why not just start with miracles and use them all the way down?

  9. Mike Elzinga

    @ mnbo:

    “YECs are notable for their inability to do simple math”
    Rather unwilling. When math seems to confirm their predetermined conclusions they suddenly are pretty good at it.

    Actually, I’ve been studying their math and physics for nearly 50 years. When one digs down only a little, one finds that the math is both wrong and irrelevant.

    The “most mathematical” stuff comes from William Dembski, Jason Lisle, and Granville Sewell. These characters just make stuff up. None of Dembski’s calculations, namely, NP less than one, applies to anything in the physics and chemistry of living organisms. Lisle’s “calculations” turn out to be phony hand-waving from which he just pulls stuff out of nowhere. Sewell can’t get third semester calculus right in his “diffusion equation” and has no clue whatsoever about the proper use of units. He is as careless at plugging things into equations as someone who substitutes time for temperature just because they both start with T. Beginning physics and chemistry students are taught to avoid such mistakes.

    I’m not kidding; it’s really that bad; but it is all buried in hundreds of pages of “philosophy” in order to make it appear scholarly. Skip all the surrounding philosophy and hand-waving and go directly to the math. The math has nothing to do with anything.

  10. Creationists endeavour using natural explanations and fall back on supernatural interventions only as a last resort. It impresses their followers when ‘secular’ science seemingly supports their views.

    Regarding Dr Snelling, he seems to live a double life, turning into a real scientist according to circumstances:

  11. Michael Fugate

    No, they endeavor to appear as if they are using natural explanations, but they have no idea how to do it without miracles. God is always involved and science is always not involved, even if they claim otherwise. And to be honest their followers could care less.

  12. As far as the source of water, the Bible treats water as uncreated.
    At the beginning of God’s creation, when he creates light, there is already water. And God only moves water and divides it, never creates it. Water is the source of the first living things.

  13. Michael Fugate – I beg to disagree. Creationists have a high regard for science and are anxious to show that ‘secular’ science proves them right. They always have a whole list of science article from which they cherry-pick. None of their followers is going to read the whole article, but it looks impressive. Think of the natural rafts on which the kangaroos have supposedly drifted from Mt Ararat to Australia. No supernatural intervention is required.

  14. They have no overriding worldview. There is no consistent place for nature, and no consistent place for the supernatural. There is no consistent interpretation of the Scrptures. Everything is done ad hoc, with the hope that there is no interest in continuity of narrative.

  15. Actually, the WorldNEtDaily comments sections provide endless entertainment by its regular readership. Mostly of the creacrapper variety with a few just crazies mixed in. Great stuff.

  16. WorldNutDaily allows comments but the IDiots don’t. That should tell you something.

  17. Creationists must be tormented by doubt. How else to explain their leaps of illogic, twisting of facts, and outright lies? And their rationalization of contradictory creationist stories; their eye-witness seems confused. Oh, I forgot, they have to distort truth in order to believe in their heavenly afterlife.

  18. They must be reassured by Paul’s comment about foolishness in the logic of the Greeks.

  19. @LesL identifies “The problem with …”
    The? Is there only one problem with the Biblical Flood nonsense? Here’s yet another one for you. If you already accept “goddiddid” (miracles etc.) why bother with trivial questions like where the water came from and where it went?
    Ah – MichaelF beats me.

    @MikeE: “Sewell can’t get third semester calculus right”
    Or doesn’t want to? No matter how often you tell him that he misrepresents the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he will keep on repeating it.

    “it’s really that bad; but it is all buried in hundreds of pages of “philosophy” in order to make it appear scholarly.”
    No micrograin of doubt about it. I just want to point out once again that these guys are beyond the point where the difference between dishonesty and stupidity still matters.

    “The math has nothing to do with anything.”
    Neither has the surrounding “philosophy”.

    @MIchaelF: “And to be honest their followers could care less.”
    And to be equally honest I am pretty much convinced that no single creacrapper (including Dembsky, Lisle and Sewell) does either. They may not admit it, but in the end they all display Kurt Wise’s attitude:

    ” if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate”
    Those three may protest now that they are no YEC’s, but every regular here understands that the difference is only marginal. The age of the Universe is not what matters to them. What matters is “I ain’t no kin of no friggin monkee”. This is where MNb’s First Law comes from: every creationist is lying until proven otherwise.
    So MikeE, not to encourage you of checking creacrap pseudomath, but I believe you i immediately, without looking at any of your work.

  20. @TomS nails it: “They have no overriding worldview.”
    Exactly. A worldview requires a certain degree of consistency and coherence. Both are thoroughly lacking. The only question remaining is whether they are necessarily lacking. I think the answer is positive. Demonstrating it takes some effort, in any case more than pointing out what’s wrong with creacrap. That’s easier than finding a dark skinned person in Senegal.

  21. Mike Elzinga


    So MikeE, not to encourage you of checking creacrap pseudomath, but I believe you i immediately, without looking at any of your work.

    The problems with ID/creationism were evident right from its start in 1970; but now we have 50 years of their generated crap and court cases as a public record. They can no longer distance themselves from it.

    But the nausea of slogging through that crap is somewhat mitigated by the realization that many of the ID/creationist memes have become stumbling blocks to learning and therefore require analysis that can help with remedial teaching methods. ID/creationists, whether deliberately or because of just plain stupidity and incompetence, have used common misconceptions and turned them into weapons against the teaching of science.

    Let them wear in public what they have created; they now look dishonest and stupid. They have damaged themselves more than they have hurt education; and I am more than willing to grind their faces in their own crap. They haven’t been very nice over the last 50 years.

  22. @Scientist: “Creationists must be tormented by doubt”. No, they are not! That’s the point. They are absolutely confident that they got the Truth. It’s the ‘secular’ scientist who is fumbling around in the dark, tormented by doubt, constantly having to change his mind.

  23. Sorry, Mike, bad typo, so that I wrote exactly the opposite of what I wanted. Please read “disencourage.

    “that many of the ID/creationist memes have become stumbling blocks to learning”
    For your compatriots, much less for the compatriots of at least some of your ancestors, which I’m sure came from

    Orthodox protestant schools, including the ones from the Dutch equivalent of the Bible Belt, are obliged to teach Evolution Theory. Scientific textbooks used on schools must be approved by scientific committees appointed by government, exactly the way our dear SC doesn’t like it. As a result The Netherlands never have seen comedies like the Dover-Kitzmiller trial.

    “I am more than willing to grind their faces in their own crap.”
    Here we are allies – and no matter the huge political disagreements I have with our dear SC, when it comes to this we are allies as well.