Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Audie]

It has been my experience, that many creationist like to run these debates and discussions like a war of attrition. If they can stubbornly hold out, deny the evidence and regurgitate their claims long enough, they seem to think they have won the debate.

"i argued a whole roomfull of evos to a standstill"

 

[nPeace]

There are answers. Ask a geologist. They can tell you. It was formed by erosion of the Colorado River cutting through the strata for five million years. Ok. Six million years. If it is older, than how does that change how it was formed?

You know what caused the Colorado River to cut through it I suppose.
Why do you know, and the geologist who suggested it as a possibility, does not claim to know, but considers it as one possible theory?
There are many possible answers to a lot of things we think we know, and we often want to claim that our assessment of the evidence is right.
In that case, everyone knows.

@Dan From Smithville sorry, my mistake. I thought you were saying ask a geologist - you. Sorry.

Have you studied biogeography? Do you know how long this process takes? It can begin almost as soon as the land is available, but the process does not take weeks, months or even years.

So a couple of kangaroos left the Ark, stayed together for 1000's of miles and made it back to Australia? How did they know which direction to travel? How did they avoid accidents? How would they have made the journey if they were reproducing and slowed down by that? What about another species that is reliant on specific sources of food? How would that species manage. Given that there are numerous species with host-specific nutritional needs and that the Bible said that all life on Earth was extinguished or at least was covered in mud or destroyed because the continents were moving around like race cars, how did these manage to translocate to their points of origin and begin again?

Well, it seems like you are the one that knows, so perhaps you can give me the whole story of what exactly happened, and what didn't happen.
Perhaps you could use the video, and explain.
You said

the process does not take weeks, months or even years

So perhaps you can start there. If it doesn't take weeks, months or even years, then ....?

It has been my experience, that many creationist like to run these debates and discussions like a war of attrition. If they can stubbornly hold out, deny the evidence and regurgitate their claims long enough, they seem to think they have won the debate.

May I ask what you mean by deny the evidence?

 

[Audie]

A very good point. And an obvious one. I feel silly for missing it. Well done.

Obvious, yes, but to be glossed over.
Same with the clams. A inconvenient fact!

A dead clam ON the beach would have its shell open,
from seagulls if nothing else. A clam that dies
down in the mud or sand...how the heck is its shell going
to open??

 

[nPeace]

Fantastic! I was about to post about the "Redwall Formation", "Coconino Formation", etc., and the obvious lack of erosion between these different strata.

Great! Present it, nPeace!

Or you can stick with what you already have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know what caused the Colorado River to cut through it I suppose.

Gravity and the differential density of the substrate through which the water traveled.
[/QUOTE]Why do you know, and the geologist who suggested it as a possibility, does not claim to know, but considers it as one possible theory?
There are many possible answers to a lot of things we think we know, and we often want to claim that our assessment of the evidence is right.
In that case, everyone knows.[/QUOTE]I know a lot of people. Thank you very much. I know the evidence and have read books describing how the canyon was formed. None of those explanations involve waterlogged sediment defying gravity and maintaining near vertical walls while undergoing hardening to stone.

[/QUOTE]@Dan From Smithville sorry, my mistake. I thought you were saying ask a geologist - you. Sorry.[/QUOTE]No worries. I can appreciate the problem having similar happen to me.


[/QUOTE]Well, it seems like you are the one that knows, so perhaps you can give me the whole story of what exactly happened, and what didn't happen.
Perhaps you could use the video, and explain.
You said
So perhaps you can start there. If it doesn't take weeks, months or even years, then ....?


[/QUOTE]May I ask what you mean by deny the evidence?[/QUOTE]Gravity drawing water down a gradient through the substrate for millions of years and you get a canyon. The rate doesn't have to be the same continuously. All I can say is that there is no evidence the canyon was formed in a year or two from a cataclismic flood. Most supporters of the flood deny the evidence arising from study of the canyon. Including the layers of wind-formed strata sandwiched between layers of water-formed strata. How a flood could manage to do that is another physical law-defying event.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Obvious, yes, but to be glossed over.
Same with the clams. A inconvenient fact!

A dead clam ON the beach would have its shell open,
from seagulls if nothing else. A clam that dies
down in the mud or sand...how the heck is its shell going
to open??

That is something that occurred to me as well. I have caught living freshwater clams on a hook and line on rare occasions. Obviously the shell of those living individuals were open while under water and alive. As it happens, they are open and closed while alive on a regular basis. Just as you are indicating. Blanket declaration that all clams have to have their shells in a certain confirmation or a flood happened is another ridiculous claim.

I enjoy watching you spar with them over these points. That is in part one of the pastimes I have engaged in on forums like this. These, often very critical, details seem to elude the creationists. Clearly, I am not on my game tonight.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or you can stick with what you already have.

What he already has appears to have been refuted by a number of posters. He is going to have to go back to formula or concede his argument is the failure it has been demonstrated to be.

 

[nPeace]

Gravity and the differential density of the substrate through which the water traveled.

I know a lot of people. Thank you very much. I know the evidence and have read books describing how the canyon was formed. None of those explanations involve waterlogged sediment defying gravity and maintaining near vertical walls while undergoing hardening to stone.

Gravity drawing water down a gradient through the substrate for millions of years and you get a canyon. The rate doesn't have to be the same continuously. All I can say is that there is no evidence the canyon was formed in a year or two from a cataclismic flood. Most supporters of the flood deny the evidence arising from study of the canyon. Including the layers of wind-formed strata sandwiched between layers of water-formed strata. How a flood could manage to do that is another physical law-defying event.

I accept that you hold to one theory, but I don't accept that you are the god of the experts, and I am sure you don't think so either.
Whether the river caused it or not, we know that something did, even if that something caused an overflow of the Colorado river.

So aren't the layers of the geological strata a result of years of natural events? What would that have to do with Grand Canyon formation?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Or you can stick with what you already have.

Actually I don’t have any outline of the material ready, but please, I appreciate any help. In fact, you take over, and I’ll help you.

OK? I haven’t been feeling too good.

 

[nPeace]

Actually I don’t have any outline of the material ready, but please, I appreciate any help. In fact, you take over, and I’ll help you.

OK? I haven’t been feeling too good.

Sorry to hear bro. Actually I am not my best today either. I am really breezing today, and I won't be on tomorrow.
However, the flood topic isn't my favorite topic, as it never goes further than speculations, and I end up bored, so you can always take a break, and return when you are up to it.
When I am on though, I will engage.

All the best.

 

[Bear Wild]

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?

If you are saying thousands of years then yes. We have a good Idea of the geography of the world and also a good idea of the animal adaptions. That is not hard. What is impossible is to explain how all of the species of animals some with quite limited ability to travel could get to the ark or fit on the ark or know how to get to the ark etc. Most plant life would have been eliminated too. Noah's ark is a myth teaching its followers to uphold the Jewish laws and morals. It is not to be interpreted as what actually happened.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

I see, you are pointing out how open minded scientists are to knew information which expands the depth of our understanding of the natural world. They are not closed minded and try to bend inaccurate information to prove something they cannot prove. That is good of you.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

It does not actually. If you wipe out the plant with a flood there are some species adapted to Islands as is well known in ecological studies but there are even more that are not. Using island biology does not prove anything about the flood if you are familiar with botany or ecology. You clearly do not understand what would happen to the majority of plants that would not survive and yet are here today. How fast do you think the alps, rocky mountains, Appalachian mountains or Himalayan mountains formed? Can you give a guess?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The problem is, he's not done anything at all to demonstrate that to be so.

Uh .yes, I have.

By observation..
Do you notice much weathering of the features on mountain ranges like the Himalayas, the Alps, etc.? I and many others don't. (The rocks are very old, fine. But the features they've formed from being uplifted, are new-looking.) We see crisp, well-defined features; with the extreme elements they endure....if they're millions of years old, they would be rounded stumps by now!
Do these features seem old to you, @nPeace ? What about you, @URAVIP2ME ? What about you, @Misunderstood ?

Who else can I trust to give me an honest answer? Now, to those I've asked: if you think I'm wrong, tell me.

Some features on some ranges, do look old, ie., have experienced much erosion....they must have been uplifted prior to the Flood, and afterward, raised higher. Or lowered, if they existed on land directly above those "vast springs of the watery deep'", which (during and after the Flood) would've formed "the valleys" mentioned in Psalms 104.

We should always be open to any possibilities to increase accurate knowledge!
Ex.: The Geological Society of London - Mountain Roots

 

[Audie]

That is something that occurred to me as well. I have caught living freshwater clams on a hook and line on rare occasions. Obviously the shell of those living individuals were open while under water and alive. As it happens, they are open and closed while alive on a regular basis. Just as you are indicating. Blanket declaration that all clams have to have their shells in a certain confirmation or a flood happened is another ridiculous claim.

I enjoy watching you spar with them over these points. That is in part one of the pastimes I have engaged in on forums like this. These, often very critical, details seem to elude the creationists. Clearly, I am not on my game tonight.

Another fun detail is, IF one were to dump a load of
dredgings with full of clams etc, over the peaks of some
mountains, how long might one expect that mud to stay
there? Is it going to (really-really) turn to stone up there?

Anyway, watch and see if our Flood guy will be able
to admit that even this one little detail about "live"
clams is just wrong. It in no way invalidates the
flood story, so it is not like the last barrier that prevents
the collapse of Christianity.

In his words-

Who can I trust to give me an honest answer? Now, to those I've asked: if you think I'm wrong, tell me.

He has been told he is wrong, and why. He challenges
others to be honest; lets see how he himself does.

 

[Jose Fly]

Uh .yes, I have.

By observation..

Again, it's obvious that you and I approach subjects like this completely differently. But given our almost polar opposite backgrounds, I guess that's to be expected.

Do you notice much weathering of the features on mountain ranges like the Himalayas, the Alps, etc.? I and many others don't. (The rocks are very old, fine. But the features they've formed from being uplifted, are new-looking.) We see crisp, well-defined features; with the extreme elements they endure....if they're millions of years old, they would be rounded stumps by now!

Again, those are just vague assertions, with no ties to actual geologic data at all. Which specific mountains are you referring to? Which specific "features" are you talking about? What rock types are they composed of? What specific characteristics do they exhibit that causes you to conclude that they're young?

Who else can I trust to give me an honest answer? Now, to those I've asked: if you think I'm wrong, tell me.

The problem is, your assertions above are too vague to be of any use, as are your assertions below....

Some features on some ranges, do look old, ie., have experienced much erosion

Which features? Which ranges? What are the specific conditions of each (i.e., those that you think "look old" and those you think don't)?

they must have been uplifted prior to the Flood, and afterward, raised higher. Or lowered, if they existed on land directly above those "vast springs of the watery deep'", which (during and after the Flood) would've formed "the valleys" mentioned in Psalms 104.

How? By what mechanism? And again, you need to propose a specific mechanism that clearly explains the specific geologic conditions at each site.

However, if as before you're simply unable to provide the specific information required to make a compelling case then please just say so and we can move on.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are kind of returning gish for gish.
It is tough to stay on one detail, but, worth a try.

Not sure what you're talking about, since I've stuck to trying to get him to address the specifics of the Himalayas since I first posted in this thread.

For hockey's assert ions,some numbers would be in order, as well as some assurance that no mountains continue to grow taller faster than they erode.

Kinda what I've been saying the whole time.

 

[Audie]

Not sure what you're talking about, since I've stuck to trying to get him to address the specifics of the Himalayas since I first posted in this thread.


Kinda what I've been saying the whole time.

Oh, yeah, say, how about you notice that was my evil twin?
I will tell her to delete that right now.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Uh .yes, I have.
By observation..
Do you notice much weathering of the features on mountain ranges like the Himalayas, the Alps, etc.? I and many others don't. (The rocks are very old, fine. But the features they've formed from being uplifted, are new-looking.) We see crisp, well-defined features; with the extreme elements they endure....if they're millions of years old, they would be rounded stumps by now!
Do these features seem old to you, @nPeace ? What about you, @URAVIP2ME ? What about you, @Misunderstood ?
Some features on some ranges, do look old, ie., have experienced much erosion....they must have been uplifted prior to the Flood, and afterward, raised higher. Or lowered, if they existed on land directly above those "vast springs of the watery deep'", which (during and after the Flood) would've formed "the valleys" mentioned in Psalms 104.
We should always be open to any possibilities to increase accurate knowledge!
Ex.: The Geological Society of London - Mountain Roots

I have noticed when there is lava eruption once cooled a new island is made from the old.
Mt. St. Helens, after the earth cooled down, fresh new growth began to appear.
So, we can see how resilient Earth is. Old Earth bounces back refreshed like new.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Another fun detail is, IF one were to dump a load of
dredgings with full of clams etc, over the peaks of some
mountains, how long might one expect that mud to stay
there? Is it going to (really-really) turn to stone up there?
Anyway, watch and see if our Flood guy will be able
to admit that even this one little detail about "live"
clams is just wrong. It in no way invalidates the
flood story, so it is not like the last barrier that prevents
the collapse of Christianity.

I am wondering about how sea shells ended up on mountain tops.
Christianity (rather Christendom) will Not collapse on her own.
The ' powers that be ' will surprisingly turn on her.
Perhaps a bad economy can make their wealth look attractive to the political realm and look easy for their taking.