Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Bear Wild]

Why shouldn't it be a piece of cake to recreate it in a lab, since all the genes for making different features are there?
They talk a lot about their experiments with bacteria and seeing evolution in hours.
It shouldn't be hard to create the RNA, and then build on it - demonstrating it... or is it?
Perhaps you just want us to have blind faith.

By the way, there is no proof for evolution. Perhaps you might want to use another expression.

It would seem you actually do not know anything about genetics, evolution, and even basic biology. We can splice genes together in a lab, we do it all the time. Insulin which bacteria or yeast do not need is produced by bacteria or yeast which have had the insulin gene spliced into them. That has nothing to do with evolution. Making a dog from a bacteria in a persons life time has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a slow process. We see changes in genetic makeup through mutations in a lifetime but major changes in organisms is slow. It has taken about 3500 million years for life to evolve into what we see today and now it is asked why can't you prove it by creating a dog from bacteria in a persons lifetime? All that request proves is a complete lack of understanding. The proof has been discussed so often that only someone who does not want to understand it and actively decides to remain ignorant about the subject would make such statements.

There is no proof for genesis or Noah's ark so people create fake proofs or make the statement faith is all they need but then demand proof from everyone else. Blind faith is exactly what you would need to have to believe that the story of genesis or Noah's ark is the only explanation. Believing in evolution is the opposite of blind faith. This theory has been questioned more than any other theory and yet the evidence continues to grow and support the theory. Every step of the way has been questioned and tested. That is not blind faith that is being open to understanding our world without preconceived beliefs controlling inquiry or an arrogance of over self-worth not to see just how connected we are with the rest of life. I want you to get beyond your blind faith and finally see the truth about our world and who we are.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So @Hockeycowboy I take it that you and I are done? You're not going to discuss and address the specific geologic conditions around uplift mountain ranges and describe how the data is better explained by your scenario than by the plate tectonics model?

No, I didn't say we were through. I did answer your response, that tectonics plays a role now.

But let me ask you: can you tell when some natural object has eroded? Now, do the Himilayas exhibit an eroded appearance? Or do they display distinct, well-defined characteristics?

Another question: how come the 'ancient earth' had less water? Where did the present water come from?

 

[Misunderstood]

And if you want to discuss these one at a time that would be the proper way to do so. A correction on the depth of the oceans if the Earth was "as flat as a billiard ball" it would be closer to 1.5 miles since the volume of the oceans are roughly 300 million cubic miles and the surface of the Earth is 200 million square miles. But that does not matter. The mountains that need to be covered are far older than mankind. You would need over five miles more water than is in the oceans to cover all of the mountains.

I feel this thread is turning into a conflagration, it has gone in so many directions it is hard to keep up with what is being said, and the points that have already been made. I cannot even keep up with the thread trying to get up to speed to even be able to construct a valid response anymore.

I believe you to be correct in saying these need to be discussed one at a time to keep the conversation on track and to keep the conversation orderly. I would be willing to start with #1 and go on from there.

I do want to say that I do hesitate to get into conversations on these types of items, as I see they do not advance the message of Christianity. All they would do is to possible prove the existence of God if it was able to be proven. God is perfectly capable of doing that if He wanted. I know I will not be able to prove anything to you or anyone else. All I can hope for is to possible get someone to see where we are coming from or even say well I doubt it but maybe it is possible.

My fear is that I may be doing this for my own vanity, I hope not. It has been your comments on Christians being ignorant or uneducated, and that God is a liar. I somehow feel compelled to defend this.

I also want to say the hardest thing in getting involved is the time it will take. I can only reply in the evenings and late at night as I work during the day. I can sometimes spend more time on the weekends, but sometimes I get home late and just want to eat and go to bed, so if you can suffer through a slow motion conversation I would be willing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

By the way, there is no proof for evolution.

There is evidence for changes within species. That's why humans can create a new breed of dog, or cat.

Noah only had about 35,000 individual animals on the Ark -- there being 2 of each "kind", that would be about 16,000 species. But how many land species are currently on Earth? Estimated to total maybe 6.5 million! (Explorers have only discovered c.1,000,000 land species so far, with c.10,000 new land and sea species discovered every year.) So, with that in mind, there has been a lot of speciation since the Flood! Jehovah no doubt has played a role in that...although mankind is alienated from Him at the moment, He still cares for us, and provides marvels for us to discover! As Jesus said @ Matthew 5:45, "He makes His sun shine on the righteous and the unrighteous."

All this being said, there is no proof that men descended from fish, or apes! Only if the evidence is interpreted that way....but then there are too many unanswered questions that arise.

No proof that any organisms within a family evolves into another family.

All they can do, are form other species, maybe other genera.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel this thread is turning into a conflagration, it has gone in so many directions it is hard to keep up with what is being said, and the points that have already been made. I cannot even keep up with the thread trying to get up to speed to even be able to construct a valid response anymore.

I believe you to be correct in saying these need to be discussed one at a time to keep the conversation on track and to keep the conversation orderly. I would be willing to start with #1 and go on from there.

I do want to say that I do hesitate to get into conversations on these types of items, as I see they do not advance the message of Christianity. All they would do is to possible prove the existence of God if it was able to be proven. God is perfectly capable of doing that if He wanted. I know I will not be able to prove anything to you or anyone else. All I can hope for is to possible get someone to see where we are coming from or even say well I doubt it but maybe it is possible.

My fear is that I may be doing this for my own vanity, I hope not. It has been your comments on Christians being ignorant or uneducated, and that God is a liar. I somehow feel compelled to defend this.

I also want to say the hardest thing in getting involved is the time it will take. I can only reply in the evenings and late at night as I work during the day. I can sometimes spend more time on the weekends, but sometimes I get home late and just want to eat and go to bed, so if you can suffer through a slow motion conversation I would be willing.

What was "#1"? As long as you face the facts we should have no problem at all. And once again, the point is that people who believe the flood are calling God a liar. I am not. If you understood the science you would understand why. When I was a Christian I could not believe the myths of Genesis. I did not think that God was a liar so I read them as allegory.

Let's go over the points slowly and calmly one at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence for changes within species. That's why humans can create a new breed of dog, or cat.

Noah only had about 35,000 individual animals on the Ark -- there being 2 of each "kind", that would be about 16,000 species. But how many land species are currently on Earth? Estimated to total maybe 6.5 million! (Explorers have only discovered c.1,000,000 land species so far, with c.10,000 new land and sea species discovered every year.) So, with that in mind, there has been a lot of speciation since the Flood! Jehovah no doubt has played a role in that...although mankind is alienated from Him at the moment, He still cares for us, and provides marvels for us to discover! As Jesus said @ Matthew 5:45, "He makes His sun shine on the righteous and the unrighteous."

So you believe in macroevolution. At least we are getting somewhere.

 

[Misunderstood]

Yea, it is hard to remember the start of the thread. This is the #1 item from the OP. I wanted to go back to the beginning and the post you just responded to was the 4th post in the thread that made since so I went there.

1.Vast herds, comprising perhaps millions of grazing animals, discovered within the muck fields by gold hunters in the Alaskan and Yukon regions. In the Siberian permafrost, a few have been discovered upright, with food (delicate flowers like buttercups, that only grow in temperate climates) discovered still unchewed in their mouths, like the Berezovka Mammoth. (They died instantly, not from a slow-moving ice age!)

http://www.amendez.com/Noahs Ark Articles/NAS Worldwide Mammal Massacre.pdf

The question is raised — and properly so: “How could a Global Flood cause such freezing temperatures?” Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere....the troposphere?...the mesosphere?...the stratosphere? The Bible doesn’t say, it is silent. (Maybe from all five.) But the waters above the Earth caused temperatures to be very mild, and pleasantly warm.... similar to a greenhouse effect, worldwide. (That’s why Adam & Eve could go naked, and be very comfortable.) Yes, the Bible indicates there were seasons, but apparently mild ones.

All of that drastically changed, with the break in this canopy! Temperatures would drop suddenly!

This is the first statement of the OP that is being refuted. There are a few things I might even disagree on. But if we can work through the issues one at a time, what would be your first cause for concern, or what do you feel would go against science?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is the first statement of the OP that is being refuted. There are a few things I might even disagree on. But if we can work through the issues one at a time, what would be your first cause for concern, or what do you feel would go against science?

I'm going to PM you. (Conversation )

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yea, it is hard to remember the start of the thread. This is the #1 item from the OP. I wanted to go back to the beginning and the post you just responded to was the 4th post in the thread that made since so I went there.



This is the first statement of the OP that is being refuted. There are a few things I might even disagree on. But if we can work through the issues one at a time, what would be your first cause for concern, or what do you feel would go against science?

The problem with that statement is that it was not properly supported even though support for it was asked many times. It is not my claim so I am not going to support it, but I will help you. If it is true then there should have been more modern papers on the "muck fields". As I said I will help you in your search. The present day term for the "muckfields" is permafrost. The permanently frozen layer of mixed soil in Alaska and northern Canada (probably northern Russia as well).

As you probably know sites such as "Answer in Genesis" will not be accepted. I believe that the author grossly exaggerated his findings since I have only heard refutations of those sort of claims.

 

[Misunderstood]

The problem with that statement is that it was not properly supported even though support for it was asked many times. It is not my claim so I am not going to support it, but I will help you. If it is true then there should have been more modern papers on the "muck fields". As I said I will help you in your search. The present day term for the "muckfields" is permafrost. The permanently frozen layer of mixed soil in Alaska and northern Canada (probably northern Russia as well).

As you probably know sites such as "Answer in Genesis" will not be accepted. I believe that the author grossly exaggerated his findings since I have only heard refutations of those sort of claims.

OK, I can accept permafrost over muck fields and will not try to confirm either case, unless you feel it is important, I do not see where it is a problem with the OP's statement so far. Nor do I see it as a piece of evidence to refute the flood on its own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I can accept permafrost over muck fields and will not try to confirm either case, unless you feel it is important, I do not see where it is a problem with the OP's statement so far. Nor do I see it as a piece of evidence to refute the flood on its own.

I never claimed that refuted the flood. @Hockeycowboy claimed that that somehow that was evidence for the flood. Which is why we asked for it from a reliable source.

Now if you want to talk about evidence against the flood I will gladly give you that.

Tell me which version do you believe in? I know of people that claim that it was a worldwide flood, that it was a smaller than worldwide. That it was a very local flood. And I have heard that it is allegory so simply telling me "the one in the Bible" tells me nothing.

 

[Misunderstood]

I never claimed that refuted the flood. @Hockeycowboy claimed that that somehow that was evidence for the flood. Which is why we asked for it from a reliable source.

Now if you want to talk about evidence against the flood I will gladly give you that.

Tell me which version do you believe in? I know of people that claim that it was a worldwide flood, that it was a smaller than worldwide. That it was a very local flood. And I have heard that it is allegory so simply telling me "the one in the Bible" tells me nothing.

Sorry if that came across wrong. I was not trying to say you did, and I am not sure why it would be used to confirm the flood. Muck or permafrost, I do not see a problem, is all I was trying to say. And feel we can move on to a different issue of the OP's #1 statement, unless you feel there are no more issues with the OP's #1 statement in which case we can move to #2. (no pun intended)

Just FYI my belief does not stand or fall on the flood story. If somehow what I believe about the flood is proven wrong would not affect my belief. There is not a lot said in the bible about it to be sure exactly what happened or how. It could be proven to be allegory, or we may not be interpreting what we are reading correctly, and my views on the flood is a bit malleable.

But to answer your question of what I believe, it is a worldwide flood. With some life continuing after the flood that was not on the ark.

Goodnight, I am going to bed.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

By the way, there is no proof for evolution. Perhaps you might want to use another expression.

It turns out you are wrong. Again.


Proof of evolution:
1) 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence
5) http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/multicellular-life-evolve/
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/
7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
8) http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/
9) http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
10) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/…/topicbrowse2.php…
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
14) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

By the way, there is no proof for evolution. Perhaps you might want to use another expression.

It turns out you are wrong. Again.


Proof of evolution:
1) 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence
5) http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/multicellular-life-evolve/
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/
7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
8) http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/
9) http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
10) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/…/topicbrowse2.php…
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
14) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[Audie]

I feel this thread is turning into a conflagration, it has gone in so many directions it is hard to keep up with what is being said, and the points that have already been made. I cannot even keep up with the thread trying to get up to speed to even be able to construct a valid response anymore.

I believe you to be correct in saying these need to be discussed one at a time to keep the conversation on track and to keep the conversation orderly. I would be willing to start with #1 and go on from there.

I do want to say that I do hesitate to get into conversations on these types of items, as I see they do not advance the message of Christianity. All they would do is to possible prove the existence of God if it was able to be proven. God is perfectly capable of doing that if He wanted. I know I will not be able to prove anything to you or anyone else. All I can hope for is to possible get someone to see where we are coming from or even say well I doubt it but maybe it is possible.

My fear is that I may be doing this for my own vanity, I hope not. It has been your comments on Christians being ignorant or uneducated, and that God is a liar. I somehow feel compelled to defend this.

I also want to say the hardest thing in getting involved is the time it will take. I can only reply in the evenings and late at night as I work during the day. I can sometimes spend more time on the weekends, but sometimes I get home late and just want to eat and go to bed, so if you can suffer through a slow motion conversation I would be willing.

The op was a gish, so of course it went in all directions.

 

[Audie]

No, I didn't say we were through. I did answer your response, that tectonics plays a role now.

But let me ask you: can you tell when some natural object has eroded? Now, do the Himilayas exhibit an eroded appearance? Or do they display distinct, well-defined characteristics?

Another question: how come the 'ancient earth' had less water? Where did the present water come from?

It is so easy to show that erosion produces fresh
and, yes, sharp ridges and so on.

Right after I show you how all the vegetation
of mammoth days was not as you claimed.

(Did you check for yourself and decide to
duck my challenge?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry if that came across wrong. I was not trying to say you did, and I am not sure why it would be used to confirm the flood. Muck or permafrost, I do not see a problem, is all I was trying to say. And feel we can move on to a different issue of the OP's #1 statement, unless you feel there are no more issues with the OP's #1 statement in which case we can move to #2. (no pun intended)

Just FYI my belief does not stand or fall on the flood story. If somehow what I believe about the flood is proven wrong would not affect my belief. There is not a lot said in the bible about it to be sure exactly what happened or how. It could be proven to be allegory, or we may not be interpreting what we are reading correctly, and my views on the flood is a bit malleable.

But to answer your question of what I believe, it is a worldwide flood. With some life continuing after the flood that was not on the ark.

Goodnight, I am going to bed.

And when I was a Christian I did not think that the belief hinged on this myth either.

I never said that the failure of the Noah's Ark myth refuted God. Perhaps we do not have that much to debate on here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

By the way, there is no proof for evolution. Perhaps you might want to use another expression.

How about settled science? The theory is here to stay.

Imagine if a falsifying discovery were made - the precambrian rabbit, for example, or a partially digested human being in a T. rex's stomach. The mountains of evidence that we have accrued to date doesn't go away. How would we account for the existence of all of the evidence that supports Darwin's theory?

Incidentally, science deals in evidence, not proof. It is sufficient that the theory of evolution be useful - that it unifies observations, that it offers a plausible mechanism for evolution consistent with the observable laws of nature, that it accurately predicts what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature if the theory is correct, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has technical applications such as in medicine and agriculture that improve the human condition. The theory does all of that.

So no proof is needed. We'll use the theory because it works - its empirical validation.

All this being said, there is no proof that men descended from fish, or apes!

Since I just addressed this, here, I'd like to add that proof is not required by the faith based thinker to support his beliefs. so why do they require it of others?

I noted above that science deals in evidence, not proof. Faith doesn't even require evidence, much less proof. In fact, if you have evidentiary support for a belief, it's no longer a faith-based belief.

And if a belief is supported by faith rather than solid evidence, then it has no claim to superiority or primacy over any other faith-based belief, including astrology. Or the theory of evolution, which has evidence, but doesn't need it to compete with a faith-based idea. It's automatically just as valid or invalid once it's articulated.

All they can do, are form other species, maybe other genera.

That's an unsupported claim, one with much evidence to contradict it. What could possibly stop the process of the last universal common ancestor from blooming into the tree of life over geological time? Nothing. It's analogous to saying that nobody has witnessed a complete orbit of Pluto around the sun, which takes about three times longer than the tie since Pluto was discovered, therefore, all that Pluto can do is micro-orbit. That's a logical error. One only needs ask what could possibly prevent it from orbiting for as long as Pluto exists?

I have a sneaking suspicion that if the hypothesis that Pluto has orbited the sun contradicted scripture, that the notion would be treated the same way - nobody's witnessed a complete orbit, so there is no such thing as macro-orbiting, and nobody can prove otherwise - an argument that you can see is not persuasive concerning the history of our solar system

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Right after I show you how all the vegetation
of mammoth days was not as you claimed.

(Did you check for yourself and decide to
duck my challenge?)

What did I claim? Did I say tropical? I think I indicated a warm climate, at the time they died. That doesn't necessarily mean, tropical.....does it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'd like to add that proof is not required by the faith based thinker to support his beliefs. so why do they require it of others?

That's a good point. Although I should add, much evidence for individuals is personal evidence, as it is for me...I’ve had prayers answered — many times — that make it impossible to believe it was through mere coincidence. But I understand that doesn’t help others.

I noted above that science deals in evidence, not proof.

Fair enough.