Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Bear Wild]

Well, this shows that you don’t tell the truth.

“80 Days”.....What was 80 days? Nothing related to the Flood.

This compels me to cease this discussion with you now. If one resorts to lies, the endeavor to discuss any topic is worthless.

But I will debunk, or at the very least counter, your list of numbered objections.

Your are right it was 40 days and 40 nights. I will admit I remember a total of 80 sorry and was wrong to say 80 days. It is a shame you cant do the same thing. You cannot debunk or counter the objections. So who resorts to lies?

 

[Bear Wild]

I’m presenting facts, as they’ve been discovered. (Do you not believe that explorers have discovered mass graveyards of grazing ‘megafauna’ in extreme northern latitudes? Or what? If you do agree with that, then tell me, would a lot of food need to exist to support such a huge population?)






There’s no “invoking God-magic” about the Ark’s dimensions, or many of the other facets regarding the Flood. Not even the water....there’s plenty of water, existing now, that could’ve covered the entire Earth’s surface, considering the Earth’s topography was less nountainous than today, as stated in Psalms 104.

But a lot of other aspects....yes. The Scriptures tell us a few of the things Jehovah did for Noah. For one thing, He brought the animals to Noah; Jehovah “shut the door”; He gave Noah ideal dimensions....does it have to tell us everything?

Only that the animals could not make the distance and over the distance. How did he bring the animals to the ark. So the details of a boat were given but the more impossible things were left out. I wonder why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, not at all! ‘Colder than today’s arctic’? Where did you get that?!

If that were true, then there would currently be “vast herds”of grazing animals there, now!





I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the age discrepancies, not only between the animals themselves, but between the Ice Age timeline and the Bible’s.

Simply put, the global Flood changed the make-up of the atmosphere. Prior to the Flood, the waters ‘above the Earth’ provided a greenhouse effect for the Earth, that helped produce the huge amounts of vegetation needed for supporting those discovered vast herds of mega grazers.

There was more carbon dioxide in, and less cosmic rays bombarding, the lower atmosphere, which would by default result in many inaccurate readings of 14C.

And these inaccuracies have been documented.
A partial study:
Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

Here’s some further info:
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia

“...when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)

(Biased much?)

And, of course, mainstream scientists are anathema to propose any dating results agree with the Bible’s timeline!

You and I, we’re both using a stacked deck, which favors your POV and opposes mine.

I know what you’ll say...that that proves your interpretation fits the facts, more than mine.

But if that were true, there’d be consensus among scientists. But there isn’t. And the facts as the Bible presents them, is just ignored.

Based partly on crazy, faulty assumptions, like “water had to cover the world to the height of Mt. Everest!”

I wouldn’t believe the Flood happened, either, if I thought that was the case!

There are vast herds of grazing animals that live in the Arctic today. Ever heard of caribou?

Again, your claim that the atmosphere changed due to a global flood is just that. A claim. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

The claims against radiocarbon dating that I am aware of are manufactured and repeated by people that are largely ignorant of radiochemistry to the point they are unable to challenge the false claims and just pass them along. Actual problems with radiometric dating are known and accounted for by those studying the methodology as well as those using it.

There are no dating results that agree with a biblical timeline. Hardly surprising to see that scientists don't propose that.

The Bible presents an assertion with no supporting facts. It is a claim that life was created, but there is nothing to supstantiate that claim.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, this shows that you don’t tell the truth.

“80 Days”.....What was 80 days? Nothing related to the Flood.

This compels me to cease this discussion with you now. If one resorts to lies, the endeavor to discuss any topic is worthless.

But I will debunk, or at the very least counter, your list of numbered objections.

Still waiting for you to debunk the objections or was that a lie also.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not that this is more than partly correct, but at least
you are walking back your earlier claim about erosion
only producing "smooth, rounded" features.

And you seem to have indirectly accepted it that
mammoths lived in a colder climate than that of
today's arctic.

You've not gotten to the fact that frozen mammoths
date to tens of thousands of years apart in age.

Most claims using more recently--less than 150,000 years--fossilized animals that I have seen always fail to address the point that multiple locations or multiple specimens are of distinctly different ages and did not all die at the same time. A result we would expect if these organisms were killed off by a single event.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The claims against radiocarbon dating that I am aware of are manufactured and repeated by people that are largely ignorant of radiochemistry

If you think so, all you have to do is Google “errors in 14C dating.”
Simple enough.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your are right it was 40 days and 40 nights. I will admit I remember a total of 80 sorry and was wrong to say 80 days.

I appreciate your candor. Really, though, you’d have to say that you are not “very familiar” with it.

It is a shame you cant do the same thing. You cannot debunk or counter the objections. So who resorts to lies?

I am not ‘resorting to lies’. (I resent the implication.) As I said, as I get the time, I will answer those objections.

 

[Misunderstood]

He needs to 1) summarize the evidence, and 2) explain how his model explains it better than the non-flood models.


Just like @Hockeycowboy you have it backwards. When attempting to make a case, in this instance a case that the Biblical flood model is a superior explanation for the data, you do not do so by making a series of vague assertions and demanding that everyone else refute them.

That sort of thing is a logical fallacy, called shifting the burden of proof.

I have looked over this somewhat and see that this thread has moved from one thread to another and has sidestepped into this one. The intention was to list some of the evidence from the other threads. So it does look like the list is a Summary of evidence he felt important from other threads, as you are asking for.

As far as explaining it as better than non-flood models; I don't think that is what this thread is intended to do, just list and collect evidence of the flood; or at most an alternative view to non-flood models.

As far as shifting the burden of proof, I do not feel that is going on at all. But lets just say it is. This is a forum that anyone with a view on religion can join. I imagine some posters on here are quite educated. Most are just your everyday middle class citizen, a few are homeless, and some have a mental issue or two.

With that said the forum rules do not have a lot of rules on how we are to debate, other than to keep civility, trolling and attacks on members in check. Members are allowed to say pretty much what they want and how they want; trying to be as inclusive to everyone that has access to a computer and something to say.

I do agree especially on hot button issues like this, it would be good to have some format to follow, but it doesn't. So I feel you need to do the best you can or just ignore the thread, as I do not think pointing out rules is going to get very far.

I do feel that Hockeycowboy is doing a very good job with what he is doing. What I mean is it seems like he has been dog piled. For the most part he is the only one against about ten in the last five pages. He is giving answers to most posts, maybe not in the best detail, but if you have a whole mob shouting you down it is hard to make a detailed response to everyone. Anyway that's my opinion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I’m presenting facts, as they’ve been discovered. (Do you not believe that explorers have discovered mass graveyards of grazing ‘megafauna’ in extreme northern latitudes? Or what? If you do agree with that, then tell me, would a lot of food need to exist to support such a huge population?)


There’s no “invoking God-magic” about the Ark’s dimensions, or many of the other facets regarding the Flood. Not even the water....there’s plenty of water, existing now, that could’ve covered the entire Earth’s surface, considering the Earth’s topography was less nountainous than today, as stated in Psalms 104.

But a lot of other aspects....yes. The Scriptures tell us a few of the things Jehovah did for Noah. For one thing, He brought the animals to Noah; Jehovah “shut the door”; He gave Noah ideal dimensions....does it have to tell us everything?

I highlighted the parts of your post that invoked God-magic. And you seem to be agreeing with me that you have, in fact, invoked God-magic. Once you do that, you've abandoned any kind of scientific argument. Sorry.

 

[Audie]

Jumping around a bit, I thought I would address your claimed evidence from number 8. This isn't evidence of a global flood or the existence of Noah or the ark. It is taking a coincidental bit of information and applying characteristics to it that are neither valid nor testable. Anyone could craft up a claim from that bit of esoterica and say anything about it with equal validity.

From my view including something as ridiculous as that undermines your main thesis, not supports it.

I admit, I got a laugh out of it.

In an aside, I have been trying to articulate a more inclusive view of my thoughts on creationists efforts and the entire intelligent design movement. When I feel like I have something well ironed out, I will post it and see what everyone here thinks. Mostly, I do not see ID or all these efforts to provide scientific evidence for allegory to be a fruitful pursuit and people would be better served in focusing their energies on improving themselves and their spirituality.

In the Chinese dept, someone is trying to punch above his weight.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="Hockeycowboy, post: 5838855, member: 58692"]I’m presenting facts, as they’ve been discovered.

(Do you not believe that explorers have discovered mass graveyards of grazing ‘megafauna’ in extreme northern latitudes?

, considering the Earth’s topography was less nountainous than today, as stated in Psalms 104.

[/QUOTE]

In bold, three "facts" that are not facts.

 

[Audie]

I have looked over this somewhat and see that this thread has moved from one thread to another and has sidestepped into this one. The intention was to list some of the evidence from the other threads. So it does look like the list is a Summary of evidence he felt important from other threads, as you are asking for.

As far as explaining it as better than non-flood models; I don't think that is what this thread is intended to do, just list and collect evidence of the flood; or at most an alternative view to non-flood models.

As far as shifting the burden of proof, I do not feel that is going on at all. But lets just say it is. This is a forum that anyone with a view on religion can join. I imagine some posters on here are quite educated. Most are just your everyday middle class citizen, a few are homeless, and some have a mental issue or two.

With that said the forum rules do not have a lot of rules on how we are to debate, other than to keep civility, trolling and attacks on members in check. Members are allowed to say pretty much what they want and how they want; trying to be as inclusive to everyone that has access to a computer and something to say.

I do agree especially on hot button issues like this, it would be good to have some format to follow, but it doesn't. So I feel you need to do the best you can or just ignore the thread, as I do not think pointing out rules is going to get very far.

I do feel that Hockeycowboy is doing a very good job with what he is doing. What I mean is it seems like he has been dog piled. For the most part he is the only one against about ten in the last five pages. He is giving answers to most posts, maybe not in the best detail, but if you have a whole mob shouting you down it is hard to make a detailed response to everyone. Anyway that's my opinion.

You find that he is doing a good job of what?

Presenting that he knows more than all the scientists
in the world?

Promoting regressive anti intellectual nonsense?
Statements of "facts" not in evidence?
Absolute incapacity to see as real, facts not
in his version of the bible?

What do you find admirable in any of that?

There is no "mob" nor is anyone shouting him down.

He posted a gish and asked for comments.

Lack of civility, trolling, or attacking going
on? Was there such? Anyone who does feel
"attacked" has an easy option of using the ig function.

Oh ans as for "hot button".
I guess it is for some, those whose world
would crumble around them if they were
to have to concede that the "flood" is
pure fantasy.

For the rest of us, it is more like a bit of
cultural anthropology, learning of the strange
beliefs of this or that cult. Flying saucers,
bigfoot, seekers for Atlantis, whatever.

Hot button? Not exactly.

 

[Jose Fly]

I’m presenting facts, as they’ve been discovered. (Do you not believe that explorers have discovered mass graveyards of grazing ‘megafauna’ in extreme northern latitudes? Or what? If you do agree with that, then tell me, would a lot of food need to exist to support such a huge population?)

I realize you have a lot of people to respond to, but please try and keep up. Remember, I asked you for evidence of a "water canopy" above the earth prior to the flood. Unless your argument is "Mass graveyards of grazing megafauna have been discovered in northern latitudes, therefore there was a canopy of water above the earth", you haven't answered the request.

To repeat: Do you have any actual evidence of this "vapor canopy"? About how much water was in it? What kept it in place? What caused it to fall? Where did it come from in the first place? Why isn't there one now?

 

[Jose Fly]

If you think so, all you have to do is Google “errors in 14C dating.”
Simple enough.

And by the same token, all you have to do is Google "proof of bigfoot". Do you find that to be compelling evidence of bigfoot's existence?

 

[Jose Fly]

I have looked over this somewhat and see that this thread has moved from one thread to another and has sidestepped into this one. The intention was to list some of the evidence from the other threads. So it does look like the list is a Summary of evidence he felt important from other threads, as you are asking for.

From my perspective, it looks like someone trying to make a scientific-sounding argument, even though they have no understanding of how science and scientific arguments work.

As far as explaining it as better than non-flood models; I don't think that is what this thread is intended to do, just list and collect evidence of the flood; or at most an alternative view to non-flood models.

And that's the problem. We already understand how mountain ranges form. The models explain the data extremely well, which is why they've been in place for a very long time now. @Hockeycowboy is trying to say those models are completely wrong and mountain ranges are better explained by appealing to the Biblical flood. The problem is, he's not done anything at all to demonstrate that to be so.

As far as shifting the burden of proof, I do not feel that is going on at all. But lets just say it is. This is a forum that anyone with a view on religion can join. I imagine some posters on here are quite educated. Most are just your everyday middle class citizen, a few are homeless, and some have a mental issue or two.

With that said the forum rules do not have a lot of rules on how we are to debate, other than to keep civility, trolling and attacks on members in check. Members are allowed to say pretty much what they want and how they want; trying to be as inclusive to everyone that has access to a computer and something to say.

I do agree especially on hot button issues like this, it would be good to have some format to follow, but it doesn't. So I feel you need to do the best you can or just ignore the thread, as I do not think pointing out rules is going to get very far.

So your view is, this should just be an "anything goes" exercise? Anyone can assert anything and there should be no expectation to substantiate any of it? The forum should just consist of, "I believe this", "I disagree", "I disagree with you" exchanges?

Let's just say I disagree on that. I know when I post, I don't make any claims or arguments that I can't back up. But I guess that's just me.

I do feel that Hockeycowboy is doing a very good job with what he is doing. What I mean is it seems like he has been dog piled. For the most part he is the only one against about ten in the last five pages. He is giving answers to most posts, maybe not in the best detail, but if you have a whole mob shouting you down it is hard to make a detailed response to everyone. Anyway that's my opinion.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Audie]

There are vast herds of grazing animals that live in the Arctic today. Ever heard of caribou?

Again, your claim that the atmosphere changed due to a global flood is just that. A claim. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

The claims against radiocarbon dating that I am aware of are manufactured and repeated by people that are largely ignorant of radiochemistry to the point they are unable to challenge the false claims and just pass them along. Actual problems with radiometric dating are known and accounted for by those studying the methodology as well as those using it.

There are no dating results that agree with a biblical timeline. Hardly surprising to see that scientists don't propose that.

The Bible presents an assertion with no supporting facts. It is a claim that life was created, but there is nothing to supstantiate that claim.

"Vast" is such a wonderfully exact word.
It is true that there were more / more species of
large mammals during the pleistocene.

Nearly all of them are now extinct.

That, essentially, is "where they are".

If the American bison had gone extinct at the
same time, there would have been no "vast"
herds of any animals on the American prairie.

Of course, re radio carbon dating, it was so
predictable that "problems" would be brought
up to try to invalidate everything done with the
technique.

The claim made about it being worthless is as
dishonest as astrology. The resort to such
base and ignoble "argument" should hardly be
necessary, IF one were actually on the side
of "god", the angels, the bible and all of reality.

One could bring up the "vast" age of polar ice
show that the flood could not have happened, but ,
of course, all the research / researchers are either
part of a vast conspiracy led by Satan, or, they
are just phony incompetents faking it to get grant
money.

 

[nPeace]

Micro evolution would do the rest!

Or don't you believe in evolution?

You mean like this
How does a land become richly populated with various species of plants and animals?

How fast can mountains form, and develop plant species?

Hopefully this addresses where plants came from, although it seems obvious.

 

[nPeace]

Now see, this is a strawman. (I've already explained this issue in previous posts.) Did you not read my response to you, wherein I said the waters above were "some" of the Flood waters? Are you even a little familiar with what Genesis says about the Flood?

Most of the water in the Flood, came from "springs of the vast watery deep (that) were broken open." -- Genesis 7:11.

I'm not repeating myself anymore. I posted this as a courtesy, but I'm not going to repost what is already here in the thread.

Take care.

Perhaps your evidence needs this kind of research, so that we can be sure, and not have to debate it anymore.
The debate over the age of the Grand Canyon has raged for over 140 years: It's old! It's young! It's really, really old! It's not as old as you think!

The Grand Canyon is one of the most recognizable landforms on planet Earth and the most often asked question about it is, "When did it form?" If only there were a simple answer! Geologists still debate many of the details about the origin and age of the canyon but recent geologic research has shed new light on the topic.

Most scientists agreed that the Grand Canyon was carved 6 million years ago, until a study in 2012 used new data to argue that the canyon was actually 12 times as old. A new study tries to merge the old and new data into a single story.

 

[nPeace]

Only that the animals could not make the distance and over the distance. How did he bring the animals to the ark. So the details of a boat were given but the more impossible things were left out. I wonder why?

Why do you say the animals could not make the distance and over the distance?
Could it be that you are taking what you know today - that is, the geographic of the earth, the vast varieties of adaptations, etc., and projecting it back thousands of years previous? Why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you think so, all you have to do is Google “errors in 14C dating.”
Simple enough.

I am aware of some of the actual errors in radiocarbon dating. I am also aware of those made up by creationists. That hardly addresses the rest of my criticism of your original gallop.