Harley quote

No, not a 40 day event, which is another misnomer. An approximate 1 year event. Runaway subduction of sea floor hypothesized, but not without data, i.e. young sea floor from spreading,  as mechanism for flooding of shallow land masses and driving them apart. Volcanoes actively involved in later stages, called megasequences of deposition of layers. No conflict with observed rock formations, and elegant solutions to problems with classic unifromitarian theory, i.e. better explanation of overthrusts. 

And again this an awesomely representative post of how people will twist information to suit their outcome. The good Dr. uses where it suits him an absolutely literal interpretation of the bible.  However, when it does not suit him, he makes it a whole year event.  This is the same thing audiophiles do. If an "expert" says something that disagrees with their world view, they totally discount him/her. If they say something that agrees, then they will quote it ininfinitum.


If volcanoes were spewing enough to create those levels of layer deposition, everyone would be dead, many times over unless purely a localized event (even continent wide) and we know when those were. 


Runaway subduction of sea floor ... lovely, we will just ignore the massive tsunamis that would result, which with that level of subduction even surface waves would be enormous.  Of course, if there is massive subduction, water does not just appear out of no where, so that only causes localized flooding, but if you are going to ignore reality why not go all in.

“There were these giant reptiles called dinosaurs that actually did go on the ark..."

'No one suggests that "dinosaurs" were on the ark. Reptiles, my friend.'

What am I missing in this flood?

I believe there was a global flood at some point somewhere. I am just not sure how big that globus was.

Not having read the above mentioned book, are the findings that support global flood from all over the Earth, or they are limited in locations? Anybody knows?

A person's religious beliefs and views should never be conflated with their, say, audio views.  To use that as some kind of proof that since one is questionable or suspect, the other might as well be is ridiculous. 

Or, to go after someone for their beliefs because you just lost an argument on another matter is a just plain dumb thing to do.

What's next, those who believe that someone lost a legitimate election are not to be believed when they comment on an audio related matter? This isn't a slippery slope, it's a giant downhill skiing event. Have fun.

All the best,
Nonoise

audio2design, Allow me to explain a bit more the discussion in the book by Dr. Clarey, which mirrors the biblical text. The text is quite clear that the initial "rain event" (but seemingly much more involved) was 40 days. There is discussion in the text of the water going down after 150 days such that the Ark was grounded, and then subsiding until about 1 year later Noah exits the Ark. There is no twisting and manipulation of the text going on; rather, there is discussion in the book Carved In Stone of how the geologic record supports the text.

The volcanic activity is discussed in detail in the book. The volcanic activity occurs in the fifth and sixth mega sequences, at about the time the flood covers all the land - and all the people on land, as well as animals, die from the flood. There is also discussion of why there are not many humans in the fossil record. I recall reading in another work that, at the time, perhaps 10-15 years ago, the total globally of discovered human fossil remains could cover a billiard table. That’s not much, so obviously there should be a reason why there are so little human remains if there was a Flood. The book does a credible job of explaining that.

One thing I found interesting is that typically dinosaurs are buried with sea fossils. Various explanations are given by uniformitarians for this, such as even though the forms of sea life perfectly match saltwater/sea life, they must have been fresh water creatures, because... a priori the Flood has been ruled out. Instead of handling the evidence as presented, excuses are made to dismiss the obvious fossil evidence. 

For a proper model of the Flood one would have to account for the sea level at the time, and the land masses and their height. The book does all this. The action of runaway subduction is not a simple concept, and a great deal of attention is paid to discussing the principles involved in subduction and how the early sea would have likely interacted with it.

There are six mega sequences (tsunami action and aftermath) that are clearly identifiable in the rock strata. All of the particulars of the tsunamis and how they likely interacted with the land and to what extent in each megasequence- in fact, maps and charts based on the oil companies data - are provided extensively, again, showing the rock strata, both depth, which has been measured for each mega sequence, and material/type of rock, are discussed in detail. The data are presented for North America, South America and Africa, for the entire continents.

Consequently, from this perspective, there were not several exitinction events, but different "waves" of deposition of the dead animals from the megasequences. Objections to the concept of separate extinction events, including measurements that contradict the idea of meteor bombardment, are presented.

I think that scientifically inclined persons, whether skeptical or believing, would find it an interesting read. One thing is for sure; this is not a fluff, religious discussion without some rigorous data and expertise in interpreting geologic forms and events!

Hey I didn't bring religion in to this but to ignore quackery about the age of the earth or global floods is to ignore quackery about Qnon and ballot stuffing. There has been enough ignoring this kind of nonsense . We need to get out of the damn dark ages.

I feel the same way about certain political beliefs and look where it's always gotten us. On another note, I wonder just how long Admin will allow a religious debate/argument to continue in comparison to how long they let the political ones. I guess all it will take is one comment too many on a view that conflicts with Admin, which is what they did with politics.

Again, have fun and best of luck,
Nonoise

Allow me to attempt to return to our schedule...

I concur with Harley; his experience mirrors mine, as someone who builds hundreds of systems. I have had occasion to review and compare many cables.

My simple contribution to this thread is this; I believe that the only proper assessment of cables, as per manufacturer's intent, is to do so with entire sets. 

Further, I feel that comparison of fewer cables is of marginal help to the debate. I suggest that entire sets be compared, as this should reveal easily the distinction between them. 

Failing that, I do not see much hope of resolution on the measurements/perception question.   :) 

nonoise6,659 posts01-11-2021 7:46pmA person's religious beliefs and views should never be conflated with their, say, audio views.  To use that as some kind of proof that since one is questionable or suspect, the other might as well be is ridiculous.

I didn't go after someone's audio views based on their religious beliefs, but I may go after someone's lack of reading comprehension based on their posts.

Very clearly, I used it to illustrate how people often will let their beliefs, religion, audio, or otherwise dictate their perception of reality. Not reality, but their perception of it.

I understand, but sometimes you just have to let some things go.
Myself, I'm going to try to stay away from contentious debates here and concentrate on the really serious stuff going down in recent days.

All the best,
Nonoise

Real science ... even including the statement "we really don't know", which does not mean we will never know, just "we don't really know now".

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/marine-fossils-may-instead-represent-early-land-dwellers

Your good doctor just chooses to believe these things happened and happened recently. That he associates with the charlatan Ken Ham .... well that says it all.

As crazy as things are NoNoise, they really don’t worry me much. A little fear of the people is good for government. What worries me more is that Trump almost won again, not because people really like him (other than a select group), but because the democrats once again ran (railroaded in) an establishment candidate who I see doing little to advance much of anything. Don’t forget though, that many people liked quite a few of the things that Trump did or wanted to do, including stronger border controls, reduced unskilled immigration, standing up to countries that are not trading fairly, reducing bureaucratic overhead and over regulation (yes he made some stupid moves there too). Even lowering corporate taxes was a great idea for competitiveness and ended up repatriating huge sums of money. Those things were not just wanted by his hard line supporters but a very clear majority of Americans.


Unfortunately, for every good thing, there were 2 crazy things.

So 4 years of a candidate that will tell most of the people what they want to hear while likely going against what most of the people actually want (and I don’t mean just traditional Repubs).

A very significant majority are not okay with what happened in Washington and the majority accept the Repub election results.

I have to disagree with you on one thing, where this conversation went is exactly where you are worried. Beliefs before reality. It got us into this mess.

The rock strata show clearly, irrefutably, what appears to be sudden emergence of life, in a span that is so minuscule that it is a major problem to secularist scientists who hold to the prevailing theory; it's called the Cambrian Explosion, which literally is a leap from one strata to the next from forms such as single celled organisms and invertebrates to fully formed vertebrates of most classes. They have been desperate for well over 100 years to find a mechanism to fit this discontinuity of fossils into their theory. 

Ridiculous attempts to manipulate the theory have been tried, including Punctuated Equilibrium. Most sensible people realize that this is nothing more than soft science, attempts to manipulate rather than accept the evidence presented in the rocks. The Cambrian Explosion fits perfectly with the other Flood evidence. But, we can't have that - and the implications of it - can we? No, we have to have fairy tale solutions to do anything but abandon a weak theory, with it's implications. 
You see, the rocks and fossils do NOT show the classic branching tree form that supposedly happened. What to do? Try to revise the theory without abandoning it due to the hard evidence. Try to make it fit the fossils using ridiculous mechanisms that are not supported, such as pretending that morphological development happens until a species is found in the rocks, then magically no more morphological development! This is why they talk about "living fossils", because it's obvious that creatures now represented in the fossil record have never changed. OOOPS! Another problem to solve with weak mechanisms!

They have to keep trying convenient workarounds, even though they are unwarranted. They will absolutely not admit that the rock strata and fossils fit FAR better sudden emergence of life, and/or Flood. Gotta find any other workaround than to accept that. It's the same kind of mentality that gave us "Directed Panspermia" after decades of pushing the idea that life emerged on Earth, only to find the chemical nature of the rocks don't support it. OOOOPS! Now, they have to use a desperate gimmick to save the theory again. The pattern becomes quite recognizable over time; very weak evidence, but absolute adherence to a secularist agenda and so the theory will never be abandoned, regardless how much data the rocks and fossils show. That's called secularist religion, adherence to a particular form of fantasy. 

Dr. Clarey says several times in the book that the rocks don't lie. Indeed, they don't. Appeals here to articles with admittedly controversial viewpoints on what are frankly, irrelevant discoveries that won't change overall the problem of the Cambrian Explosion, are very weak. Notice how none of my detractors have actually presented contradictory evidence pertinent to the book's argument. That's because they are not knowledgable enough to do so. Rather, they make general appeals and insults. Weak, really weak. 

The community can see for themselves how I responded to the typical malignment of religion, but now we have the unwarranted insertion of politics again, likely in a bid to force moderators to eliminate the thread. Because we can't have solid, scientific evidence that refutes the populist theory. People of sound mind can clearly see what's going on here. 

Here is yet another opportunity to return the thread to the topic of cables, as was presented by the OP. Can the ego of my detractors handle that I might have the last say in this matter. Can they stomach the idea that they could just shut up and let the presented evidence and arguments rest? We'll see. 

So, here's another attempt to return to the topic; what of my discussion of using full sets of cables as the only legitimate way to work with cables, and to resolve the seeming impasse between measurements and experience? 

@nonoise I disagree. It’s all about how you think critically about things, how you determine evidence to be reliable, and how you evaluate it.

Whatever the subject may be.

@twoleftears , I disagree. No matter how I think critically about things, and how reliable the evidence is, I'll determine, for myself, when to contribute to this discussion on religion.

Truth be told, I'm really at a loss as to why you'd raise this. I'm under no obligation to respond to anyone here on that. 

All the best,
Nonoise

To me NoNoise, the problems are all related. Whether a belief adherence to how our world works due to religion even in the face of massive evidence to counter, whether choosing to ignore even your brand of partisan election official, or claiming you are not influenced by bias in listening, or mistaking preference for accuracy.  The outcomes are different, but the mental process to get there, and arguably the precursors are the same.

The workings and mechanics you describe are correct but I just don't have the capacity right now to address everything brought up lately.
Much, to much going on for me to be even handed, thoughtful and even snarky without outright losing it. But, that's just me speaking for me.

All the best,
Nonoise

Harley is the audiophile world’s ultimate subjectivist. He believes that the ear/brain interface is endowed with magical powers, and that sound quality transcends any attempt to qualify it by any type of objective measure.  This proves to be quite convenient for him.

Just one example: I remember being dismayed at seeing self-published pictures of his previous listening room, which was his living room. It was an untreated three-walled room with one side completely open to the rest of the house.  Irredeemable by objective acoustic measures, yet he claimed that it was a great sounding room.

The only cables that sound the same are the same!  Which works for your world view regarding expectations for your audio system is personal.  Everything else is blather!

I think that rocks lie big time. In fact, they are notorious liars.

The Black Sea is one geographical region that may have endured post glacial flooding, thereby fostering the Noah story found in the Bible.  Mesopotamians also had a great flood myth.  An Ark makes no sense whatsoever....I’m religious as well, but I am also a scientist.  We don’t need fantastical stories to embrace a higher being!

"It was an untreated three-walled room with one side completely open to the rest of the house."

A house with an alcove?

The period of glaciation was after the Flood, also seen clearly in the record. Read the book and learn. 

No comment on this? 

So, here's another attempt to return to the topic; what of my discussion of using full sets of cables as the only legitimate way to work with cables, and to resolve the seeming impasse between measurements and experience?

So, here's another attempt to return to the topic; what of my discussion of using full sets of cables as the only legitimate way to work with cables, and to resolve the seeming impasse between measurements and experience?

I think that is totally misdirected and there is no basis for this. IF, and that is a big if with the exception of speaker cables with excessive inductance, capacitance or resistance, there is a readily audible difference between cables, then the only way that is going to happen is through an interaction between the source, the cable, and the load. Hence what works for one set of equipment, will not for another. The concept of a full loom is pure marketing.

audio2design, thanks for your reply!

Are you taking the position that there is no discernible difference between cables, i.e. that if there is no measurable difference, then there Is no difference?

How many sets of cables have you handled? How many sets of cables have you compared in order to stake your claim?

You are suggesting the cable manufacturers are lying, "marketing". Correct? So, you give no credence to the suggestion that cable makers may know something about signal transmission? As if they do not design their individual products with such considerations in mind. I find that to be a simplistic argument. 

My point is that the argument is between measurements and perception of differences as heard by the listener. If you want to demonstrate that there are differences, quite aside from the measurements, wouldn’t it make sense to swap out a full loom of cables versus just one or two?

Imo, your arguments regarding the "marketing" etc. are irrelevant to my suggestion.

Some of the know something about signal transmission. A lot of them don't appear to. Whether they know something about it or not, what is definitely true is that many, possibly even a majority create marketing material that is full of exaggerations about material differences and geometry differences if not, for lack of a better word, making up how electricity and basic physics work.

However, there is a huge difference between a small difference in electrical transmission and something that is truly audible. I can detect far smaller differences in cable transmission with equipment than what can be heard. It is not even close.

I have been working in professional audio since the late 80s. I have many audiophile friends, many with fairly significant financial means, and my own system is certainly no slouch.  I have lost count of the number of time my friends have said these new cables are a huge difference, only for me to show that blind, they couldn't tell the difference from their old cables, or in most cases, much cheaper. We are talking over the years, 50-75.  There have been cases with audible speaker cables, and a quick check with the test equipment has shown excessive inductance, capacitance, and even in some cases resistance.  For interconnects, we have found the odd poor solder connection too.

audio2design, I will clarify my question; have you ever compared entire sets of cables in a single listening session, swapping them with intent to see what the differences are? 

It seems to me from your answer that you have not, but have conducted blind comparisons of particular cables. Is that correct? 

I am uninterested in the pedigree of systems you have heard, and of the potential manufacturing problems of some cable makers, as I believe these are tangential, and not pertinent to my point.   :)

"I am uninterested in the pedigree of systems you have heard, and of the potential manufacturing problems of some cable makers, as I believe these are tangential, and not pertinent to my point. :)"

It would mean that buying a $100 receiver and $100 set of speakers and connecting them with the world’s best speaker cables would make it all sound fantastic. The pedigree of systems cables are tested on is not tangential, it may be more relevant than those cables themselves. As many who have tried different cables would tell you.

Not having interest in relevant variables during any kind of testing renders the results irrelevant.

Of course, glupson, you will default to the most extreme, invalid comparisons, completely ignoring the context. What else would be expected of you? Pathetic. 

The argument for a "full loom" is that they "work together" or "work together better" than unmatched cables.  Given that digital cables, ICs, SCs, and PCs are all performing different tasks, and the components they are hooked up to may come from different companies, with different impedances, and also performing different functions, please explain with detailed, specific arguments from electronic engineering why a full loom is ipso facto better.

Every cable vendor blathers on and on about how their cables improve signal conduction. If that is true, then they don't need to work together as a loom. It is almost like they are not being completely truthful.

It is absolutely unquestionable beyond any shadow of a doubt that digital, especially anything approaching high res can far far more accurately reproduce an ANALOG waveform than can a vinyl playback system or reel-to-reel. And let’s be honest, that is all they are doing, recreating an analog waveform. No more, no less. All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform.

The problem here is NOT about the reproduction of a waveform coming from microphones...Nyquist theorem is a THEOREM first about Fourier translation not about human perception first... Matter closed...

The problem is that TIMBRE is also a mathematical modelling concept in acoustic and this modelling concept is there for an acoustician which try to understand a very complex concrete event JUDGED and evaluated by the human ears/brain and pertaining to the way a complex materials (a stradivarius) reproduce a musical tone in a specific acoustical dimension... The musical event consist in the fact that the note is not only a pitch accuracy but a more complex phenomenon, the sound of a stradivarius making his note is not the sound of a cheap violin producinfg the same note.... In the case of a stradivarius producing a note in a church, versus a cheap violin....

Then because no live musical event can be reproduced WITHOUT some lost of information, the fact that high resolution digital could reproduce to the perfection the analog waveform of any microphones, this fact cannot erase the fact that the microphones cannot register TOTALLY the concrete timbre event, for the very reason by which each microphones type has his own’s limitations and by reason of their specific locations.... All these choices, i will recall also mixing choices , alter the ORIGINAL timbre experience of the musical living event...

Take the Nyquist theorem, put it on a shelve for a second and think about reality :Timbre.....

Acoustic is the study of what human ears experience....Then timbre is NOT a "flowery word" save for someone ignoring acoustic....It is not only a brain/ears specific experience but a very mathematically complex concept for which science use not only Fourier analysis but many other complex tools...

I apologize to answering a post way above after dinosaurs, floods and cables discussion....

I will give 10:1 odds that people who use the same words, over and over in their posts, like fourier transform, or nyquist, have probably no real practical work where they have had to use fourier transforms or given serious consideration to how their system will be impacted by nyquist limits and subharmonic modulation. When your only tool is a hammer, you keep pulling it out of the bag. Problem is, someone only told them it was a hammer. It was really a wrench.

douglas_schroeder,

"Of course, glupson, you will default to the most extreme, invalid comparisons, completely ignoring the context. What else would be expected of you? Pathetic."

It is a bit strange that a person who brought Biblical stories about the great flood into the thread about aftermarket power cords is complaining about me going to extremes and ignoring the context. Are you practicing for a sit-down comedy show?

The community can see clearly that 1. I responded to the initial negative comments by others in regard to religion and audio. 2. I presented a book that has scientific backing (A degreed geologist, oil industry data from wells drilled, analysis of plate tectonics, etc.) which attempts to show a coherent analysis of the Flood and supports it with lithographic evidence.

Further, I have attempted to return the discussion to the topic at hand. 

"Further, I have attempted to return the discussion to the topic at hand."

What an attempt...

"I’m deeply religious, reading a great scientific book right now called Carved in Stone which uses petroleum industry data to assess the Earths lithography. Yup, there was a global Flood. Mockers will always mock what they do not understand, and a favorite trick is to use a false dichotomy between religion and science."

By the way, reading what you wrote in subsequent posts, the book and the findings you conveyed do not support "global flood". I am not saying it did not happen, but only that three continents do not make a globe.

Audio Advisor has already solved this one.

PANGEA.

Runner-up to Isoacoustics with Gaia.

All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform.

It is you that confuse the microphone waveform translated digitally with the initial waveform perceived by the human ears which is not a set of microphone...


Unable to answer any meaningful objection to my affirmation that timbre is a complex phenomenon for the human ears NEVER integrally and perfectly seized by a microphone, you attack ad hominem:

I will give 10:1 odds that people who use the same words, over and over in their posts, like fourier transform, or nyquist, have probably no real practical work where they have had to use fourier transforms or given serious consideration to how their system will be impacted by nyquist limits and subharmonic modulation. When your only tool is a hammer, you keep pulling it out of the bag. Problem is, someone only told them it was a hammer. It was really a wrench.

It is you in the first place that invoked Nyquist theorem to ridicule supposedly ignorant turntable audiophiles...Ignoring yourself elementary fact about timbre perception...More than that, you even mock a mathematician woman who at the end of an article in scientific american dont decrete the same truth than you about digital and analog, and conclude in a neutral way, accusing her to not understand Nyquist theorem.... Remember?


The initial timbre live event is always imperfectly recorded and after that perfectly translated, yes by virtue of Nyquist theorem, from analog microphones to digital, mixed, and retranslated to analog and or digital, and RECREATED in the listener room...

There is 2 important moment for timbre perception: the initial event and the listeners acoustical rooms...Nyquist theorem has nothing to do directly with timbre perception...

Then turntable people has all right to say that they prefer timbre experience from a turntable with their specific room/system/ears without being accused of ignorance or delusion....

In a word, 2 ears are not equal to 2 microphones, even if the waveform is perfectly translated by Nyquist theorem to digital........

Ears need a room to perceive natural timbre, be it a normal room with speakers or or an headphone room...
Because timbre is NOT the abstract accuracy of a note pitch only but also something linked to the complex material properties of a specific  instrument evaluated in a room....



Scientism is not science....

The principles and oil field data is global, and the book emphasizes that the same stratification that is seen in the more thoroughly presented continents is consistent throughout the world. The detailed analysis of the deposition layers is specific to North America, South America and Africa. The same data could be presented about whichever continent one wishes, but in order to make the case, these three were analyzed in painstaking detail.

One might think that at some point the floundering attempts to discredit would peter out, and the conversation return to the topic of cables. 

My perspective on cables begins with the hard won recognition (Read putting thousands of dollars into cables temporarily, comparison of sets, reviews of sets of cables, and constant system building with those sets.) that cable manufacturers indeed know quite a bit about signal and power transmission. From that stems the suggestion that it may be beneficial if audiophiles would humble themselves to take the cable makers' suggestion to use an entire set. 

What is accomplished of value in terms of assessing with intent to drive a system toward a desired sound by mixing cables? Nothing. No baseline, no means of assessment of what any particular cable is doing. It's pretending to act like you know what you're doing. Then, consider the irony that the cable mixer rails against the manufacturers as though they don't know what they are doing! This is the epitome of hubris. 

My point is simply that, quite apart from ABX, which I have done and successfully selected the proper cables with far greater than 50% accuracy, as outlined in my review of the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator), if one wishes to lay to rest the issue of perception of cable changes, swapping out one or two is not the ideal. Comparison of sets is the ideal, which imo most do not pursue due to the cost and work involved. That's understandable, but it's not supportable to suggest that mixing cables is advantageous. 

One could, theoretically compare two discrete sets of mixed cables, and that might ( I would suspect with less certainty) reveal significant enough differences between the two mixed sets to convince in regards to efficacy of cables. But, that is of little advantage to the audiophile, who would gain no understanding of the contribution of any of the cables. The far more sensible option would be to compare entire sets, from which a baseline sound is found, then other cables can be swapped in purposefully. I have done this with many sets of cables to the degree that I know the innate sonic character of particular sets of cables, and can select from particular cables to tune systems. How is that supposed to be done with mixed cables, when you have no understanding of the sound of the cables? 

Much of what I see happening in this hobby is considered proper form, but I see it as thoughtless consumerism. How else do you explain someone buying a cable in isolation from the set and thinking they  have any idea of what it will do? 

In order to properly assess cables and properly present them as having audible changes regardless of what measurements show, I would seek the maximum impact, not the minimum. Imo, that begins with putting some trust in at least a handful of cable makers who you regard as legit, design savvy, etc., then working with a full set to gain a baseline that is not fluid, and finally rotating out sets to hear fundamental differences. 

This has been my MO for reviewing as well, but with the addition that I build many systems in assessment, as opposed to few systems. 

I believe that were these principles to be followed, the debate could be resolved with more finality than the machinations that happen incessantly. 

Finding the right cord or cords for each piece of gear can make a bigger difference somtime than buying or upgrading it can be a much easier and less expensive route to take especially with a good dealer involved.

It is not hubris that I have forgot more about electrical engineering and physics than most of these cable charlatans know it's just fact based on their own writings.

Far greater than 50%? Is that 51%, 60%? because if the claimed substantial change is there it should be much > 75% not 50%. Were the levels matched to 0.1db,? How?

This concept of full loom to me is just silly and ignores the very real and substantial impact of component interaction as the only thing that will generate real sonic differences.

I am all for blind testing and I read the designer's (I assume) response under the review of above mentioned ABX Comparator...

"First of all, the capacitors, integrated circuits, diodes and resistors are not in the signal path at all."

What is the use for so much electronics in what is supposed to be an inert device?

Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator Review, Part 1: Audio Store & Wiring - Page 2 of 2 - Dagogo

Audio2sound, more like 80-90%. Read the article. 

I have a degree in Anthropology, Biology and a minor in Chemistry.  I am religious.  I also do not understand people who twist science or use yet to be discovered evidence as proof for Bible Stories.  Anyone with a true understanding of basic science would recognize crazy twisted tales supported by shoehorned data using “lack of evidence” as a main postulate for a proof.  I attended lectures by S J Gould regarding Punctuated Equilibrium.  Brilliant man....not a religious, former geologist for Chevron, but smart.  Oh, and let’s not forget Peer Review....oops!  
https://ncse.ngo/yes-noahs-flood-may-have-happened-not-over-whole-earth

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

Anywho, were there floods or even a global flood event....very possible and for various reasons.  Did people pass down stories of such events...sure.  Does any of this mean the Bible is a science book that should be taken literally?  No.  Most religious scholars will tell you the stories are allegorical, not fact.  Unless of course you get your science from the institute cited below!

https://www.icr.org/tim_clarey/