Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[John53]

So you can’t find any, huh?

Scroll up and look for your posts it's not hard and won't have to go far.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If there were 10,000 species on the arc (which is a very generous estimate)…

Actually, a lot more…

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

…we'd have, on average, 1,665 speciation events per year since the flood.
That is the most optimistic argument for evolution I've ever heard.

Although the average is lower…
but yes, I know.
I’m not an evolution denier. If you didn’t know that, then you haven’t read my posts.

…questionable details like days of the dead…

“Festivals” of the dead, and their celebrations being held on or near the same day.

I will revisit that info, and post it here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, a lot more…

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

That is still not even a tenth of the species needed. And you are making the same huge mistake that you made years ago with this. Animals need food. Animals need water. Just floating with animals is not good enough. A years worth of provisions would have had to have been included.

Although the average is lower…
but yes, I know.
I’m not an evolution denier. If you didn’t know that, then you haven’t read my posts.

“Festivals” of the dead, and their celebrations being held on or near the same day.

No, please don't. It was already refuted. They were not on the same day as you claimed. There was if I remember correctly a months pan either way. And since that time period reflects a major annual change in season that there are festivals that celebrate it is not unusual. Just as "Christmas" was already a time of celebration. So is mid summer. And you keep forgetting that without a testable hypothesis you have no evidence.

I will revisit that info, and post it here.

Oh noessssss! Not again

 

[Hockeycowboy]

…buttercups frozen in the mouths of dead mammoths.

I know you meant this as a barb, but here you go…

“Based on growth rates from the tusks, the team deduced that the mammoth had also successfully weaned eight calves and lost one baby. Feces and bacteria in the intestines revealed the ancient matriarch ate grassland plants such as buttercups and dandelions.”

Fresh Mammoth Carcass from Siberia Holds Many Secrets

Scientists will examine the mammoth to learn whether it will yield enough undamaged DNA to make cloning the extinct creature a reality

www.scientificamerican.com

The temperature range of buttercups?
50 to 75 F.
https://farmplasticsupply.com/blog/buttercup-flower-growing-tips#:~:text=Light%20%26%20Temperature&text=These%20bright%20yellow%20flowers%20need,10%2D24%20°C).

You should remember, i always post the source / reference for my information, where I can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know you meant this as a barb, but here you go…

“Based on growth rates from the tusks, the team deduced that the mammoth had also successfully weaned eight calves and lost one baby. Feces and bacteria in the intestines revealed the ancient matriarch ate grassland plants such as buttercups and dandelions.”

Fresh Mammoth Carcass from Siberia Holds Many Secrets

Scientists will examine the mammoth to learn whether it will yield enough undamaged DNA to make cloning the extinct creature a reality

www.scientificamerican.com

The temperature range of buttercups?
50 to 75 F.
https://farmplasticsupply.com/blog/buttercup-flower-growing-tips#:~:text=Light%20%26%20Temperature&text=These%20bright%20yellow%20flowers%20need,10%2D24%20°C).

You should remember, i always post the source / reference for my information, where I can.

And long before your flood:

" The team used carbon dating to determine that the female mammoth, nicknamed Buttercup, lived about 40,000 years ago."

As to the temperature range of buttercups. you only quoted the summer time range when it is in blossom. The plant can survive temperatures much colder than that:

"Low Temperature
Early buttercup is extremely cold-tolerant, but the winter temperature should be maintained above -35°C. If the temperature drops below this threshold, although there may not be any noticeable changes during winter, there may be a decrease in sprouting or even no sprouting during springtime."

Early buttercup (Ranunculus fascicularis) Flower, Leaf, Care, Uses - PictureThis

Early buttercup (Ranunculus fascicularis). The early buttercup (Ranunculus fascicularis) is found in prairies and open areas in eastern North America, where it is widespread. True to its common name, this species' yellow flowers bloom in the early springtime. Its nectar, pollen, and seeds feed...

www.picturethisai.com

I grew up in Minnesota and I have seen temperature changes of over 50 degrees Fahrenheit in one day. Do you think that was impossible in the past? You are still grasping at straws or in this case buttercups and you still do not have a testable hypothesis. This means that you still have no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you consider humans to be in a higher position somehow than animals, although you, as an evolutionist, probably believe humans ARE animals, right? Do you eat animals like chicken, fish and beef, etc. now, or are you a vegetarian?

People value humans higher then other animals for the same reason people value their close family members higher then random people they never met.

It has nothing to do with feeling "superior".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand. Many people are depressed and seek to enjoy life while they are alive.

It's kind of hard to enjoy life while not alive, off course.

That does not remove the spectre of death though, does it?

Nobody said it does.

Death is a certainty by the process of evolution.

Death is a certainty, full stop. Regardless of evolution.

Would you think it's better if people just died from nonviolent circumstances? You know, like lay down and die from old age because according to the belief, aging by evolution is structured within?

Why are you trying so desperatly to link evolution with death?
Did people not die before darwin?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! You really went on, didn’t you? And I still don’t know where you stand!

You say:

What work, in your opinion, did God do?

And does science support that opinion?

From where I sit, you’ve got choices to make that might deny science.

Like, maybe, how the Earth formed. And came to have water.

What viable “testable models” in science give credence to a natural explanation?

You asked for it.

I'm not playing this game.

You claim that science is wrong and there was a global flood and no evolution.

Support those claims or concede you cannot.

The burden of proof is on you to support your claims from where we all sit.

End of discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Speaking on reality, what’s your assessment of these posters saying they speak with spirits?

Conversing with dead loved ones, theirs and others?

What’s your “reality” on that?

Another diversion irrelevant to your claims of a global flood and no evolution.

Doesn't matter what anyone thinks about that regarding permafrost carcasses, carbon dating, a water blanket around the globe, flowers in the mouths of dead beasts, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And long before your flood:

" The team used carbon dating to determine that the female mammoth, nicknamed Buttercup, lived about 40,000 years ago."

As to the temperature range of buttercups. you only quoted the summer time range when it is in blossom. The plant can survive temperatures much colder than that:

"Low Temperature
Early buttercup is extremely cold-tolerant, but the winter temperature should be maintained above -35°C. If the temperature drops below this threshold, although there may not be any noticeable changes during winter, there may be a decrease in sprouting or even no sprouting during springtime."

Early buttercup (Ranunculus fascicularis) Flower, Leaf, Care, Uses - PictureThis

Early buttercup (Ranunculus fascicularis). The early buttercup (Ranunculus fascicularis) is found in prairies and open areas in eastern North America, where it is widespread. True to its common name, this species' yellow flowers bloom in the early springtime. Its nectar, pollen, and seeds feed...

www.picturethisai.com

I grew up in Minnesota and I have seen temperature changes of over 50 degrees Fahrenheit in one day. Do you think that was impossible in the past? You are still grasping at straws or in this case buttercups and you still do not have a testable hypothesis. This means that you still have no evidence.

The original claim was that buttercups had been found in the mouth of a single mammoth carcass as if they were just chomped on and the animal was instantly frozen. Selective references to material irrelevant to that and ignoring the information that is available explaining how this was a misinterpretation that grew in the retelling from residue found on teeth to being a mouthful of plants instantly frozen in time has been refuted.

Yet, here it is again coming up as if it were some significant find supporting imagined mechanisms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know you meant this as a barb, but here you go…

“Based on growth rates from the tusks, the team deduced that the mammoth had also successfully weaned eight calves and lost one baby. Feces and bacteria in the intestines revealed the ancient matriarch ate grassland plants such as buttercups and dandelions.”

Fresh Mammoth Carcass from Siberia Holds Many Secrets

Scientists will examine the mammoth to learn whether it will yield enough undamaged DNA to make cloning the extinct creature a reality

www.scientificamerican.com

The temperature range of buttercups?
50 to 75 F.
https://farmplasticsupply.com/blog/buttercup-flower-growing-tips#:~:text=Light%20%26%20Temperature&text=These%20bright%20yellow%20flowers%20need,10%2D24%20°C).

You should remember, i always post the source / reference for my information, where I can.

And if the argument was that mammoths didn't eat buttercups you could rest comfortably providing these references as evidence that they did eat them.

Unfortunately, for you, and for us, that isn't the argument or what you previously claimed about buttercups.

Posting irrelevant references doesn't establish your bona fides. It just supports my claim that the effort is to keep denial alive in the face of overwhelming evidence against the denial.

Since this is the game you want to play, I'll just keep correcting you and continue on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, basically not more than 6,000 years ago. We have trees that are older than that.
And we have around 10,000,000 extant species. If there were 10,000 species on the arc (which is a very generous estimate), we'd have, on average, 1,665 speciation events per year since the flood.
That is the most optimistic argument for evolution I've ever heard.

While the decay rate of C14 is constant, the creation from N14 by cosmic rays is not and neither is the release of CO2 from volcanoes, wildfires etc. Therefore C14 dating has to be calibrated by other methods. You might have read an article that dealt with those calibrations.

I doubt that.

Crude estimates I have made would indicate that at least 10 billion species had to be on that ark if you consider estimates of every species that ever existed. And a significant number were really big.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What, no, he was right. Even @Hockeycowboy knows that was not "debate" that was merely wild flapping of his arms pretending that he had a point. Even he knows that it is a failure if he has to constantly appeal to God magic.

What is a pity is that he is now openly declaring that his God is a liar. He is in a no win situation since God would have had to have planted endless false evidence against the Flood. He would have to have covered up physical evidence, chemical evidence, geological evidence, archaeological evidence, All of biology. Heck he would even have had to have planted false evidence in our genes generations after the Flood.

Do you know another term for planting false evidence? That is a form of lying and he seems to think that God did that.

That is what I have come to. If you take a literal view of the story of Noah, you have to accept an infallible, omniscient God discovered He had made a mistake and then decides to correct it by wiping out everything except 2 or 7 or 8 of all living things except not all living things. Then God erased or added volumes of evidence so that it would seem that these events never took place. If I were to follow that path, I would have to do what we see being done. Trying to come up with any conjecture that forces the facts to fit the literal story while ignoring anything that doesn't fit or make sense.

If you look at the story as an allegory, all that pigeon chess goes away. But the burden literalists have placed on themselves is that the entire Bible must be literal or their belief falls apart. Or so it seems. Certainly that is how it appears to be played out on this forum. To me, not only is that the wrong approach, it bears the marks of deifying the Bible.

 

[wellwisher]

The idea of raining forty days and forty nights also reminds me of the monsoon season. Such areas will flood with all the daily rain, but the earth is not made dead of all life, at the end of the season. What would happen if natural climate change had cause the monsoon season to shift and appear over the northern African deserts? Deserts may hide evidence better.

Also the animals collected by Noah were more indigenous to the continent of Africa. It could have been an Indian Ocean monsoon seasons, that shifted toward Africa and the Middle East, due to an El Nino season caused by an underwater thermal vent or volcano.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please, you are not a skeptic at all. You seem to think that a skeptic is someone that doubts. That is incorrect. A skeptic is a person that follows the evidence. You refuse to even understand the concept of evidence even though I have offered to go over that basic idea with you countless times. You are a believer. And believers will do whatever it takes to believe there chosen story. I am a skeptic. Even if I do not like an idea I will yield to the evidence. For years I denied AGW, that was well over ten years ago. I would debate and pull up works by scientists, that opposed it. There is one "flaw" that I have. I quite often read the sources supplied that go against me. I found that others were right when it was point out that my sources only referred to local climates. Where AGW sources based their work on global climates. One can find exceptions to AGW if one focuses only on specific local climates. Then I found not only very compelling evidence for AGW, I found that some of the most famous (or should I say infamous) debaters against it used very dishonest debating techniques. If the evidence is for you why on Earth would one distort the evidence. At any rate I was convinced against my wishes that I was wrong.

But as to C14 being trustworthy you should be aware that there are independent ways to test it. One of those is by tree rings. Those are reliable. There are trees that are not used because they can, rarely (and rarely does not really help you) be trees with more than one ring in a year. With dendrochronology we can date well past your "flood" date:

"] As of 2020, securely dated tree-ring data for the Northern Hemisphere are available going back 13,910 years.[3]"

So there goes your "flood" right there. Every tree, all around the world would have been killed by such an event. Dang those atheistic trees! The ignored your God's flood.

Dendrochronology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Have you counted your legs lately? You appear to be missing one.

The stipulation of the entire Earth being flooded, and the biblical claim that everything not on the ark was rendered dead puts a heavy burden on the literalist to show how trees survived the crushing depths and lack of sunlight and CO2 indicated by @gnostic while explaining how there were trees to have their rings counted back for almost 14,000 years.

Claiming that God selectively let trees survive when the Bible doesn't say that is stepping outside the literalist model. If you can step outside the model for that, then the model is useless.

 

[gnostic]

Did Jehovah want to kill trees?

No.

How many times do I have to say it?!

This . Was . A . *CONTROLLED* . Event.

You cannot have water covering the heights of mountains, and not destroyed plant life, in the process.

Genesis 8 says that the Ark finally rested on the mountains, mentioning Ararat:

Genesis 8:4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

And it said earlier in Genesis 7 that the water covered “all the high mountains”:

Genesis 7: 17 The flood continued forty days on the earth, and the waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

even if we were to ignore the mountains of the Himalayas (eg Everest) and of the Andes, the 2 main peaks of Ararat is about almost 3900 metres for Little Ararat and over 5100 metres for the Greater Ararat.

The World War II submarines built by the Germans would implode at the crushing depths of 200 to 280 metres.

So imagined what would happen if trees were submerged 3000 metres of water?

Trees aren’t meant to be submerged.

even the majority of marine life that people see and catch, wouldn’t live at that depth, because they are not anatomically and physiologically built to withstand the water pressures.

You are deluded if you believe that can survive months under thousands of metres water.

And the “God did it”, saving trees from depth, is unrealistic fantasy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You cannot have water covering the heights of mountains, and not destroyed plant life, in the process.

Genesis 8 says that the Ark finally rested on the mountains, mentioning Ararat:



And it said earlier in Genesis 7 that the water covered “all the high mountains”:



even if we were to ignore the mountains of the Himalayas (eg Everest) and of the Andes, the 2 main peaks of Ararat is about almost 3900 metres for Little Ararat and over 5100 metres for the Greater Ararat.

The World War II submarines built by the Germans would implode at the crushing depths of 200 to 280 metres.

So imagined what would happen if trees were submerged 3000 metres of water?

Trees aren’t meant to be submerged.

even the majority of marine life that people see and catch, wouldn’t live at that depth, because they are not anatomically and physiologically built to withstand the water pressures.

You are deluded if you believe that can survive months under thousands of metres water.

And the “God did it”, saving trees from depth, is unrealistic fantasy.

Genesis 8 KJV

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Experimental evidence indicates that if you submerge an olive tree fully into water for just three months, the leaves will fall off and the tree dies.

Given the text of the story and that fact, a dove could not have found a living olive tree after a global flood. So the story is either just a story claiming a global flood that didn't happen or the flood was not global as indicated. If the latter, this opens up further questions that would need to be addressed. For instance, why an ark at all if the flood was local? A local flood would not wipe out all humans on Earth, so how can that be explained? And so on.

 

[gnostic]

Genesis 8 KJV

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Experimental evidence indicates that if you submerge an olive tree fully into water for just three months, the leaves will fall off and the tree dies.

Given the text of the story and that fact, a dove could not have found a living olive tree after a global flood. So the story is either just a story claiming a global flood that didn't happen or the flood was not global as indicated. If the latter, this opens up further questions that would need to be addressed. For instance, why an ark at all if the flood was local? A local flood would not wipe out all humans on Earth, so how can that be explained? And so on.

yes, it leave many unanswered questions if the flood was local.

if the flood was local, and Noah knew when and where the Flood would occur, then why take a hundred years to build the Ark, when he could have easily migrated to a location, safe from the Flood.

It took alexander the Great to travel from Greece to India (more precisely the Indus Valley), 7 years. And that with sizeable army following him.

Noah have far more time than Alexander, so imagine how far Noah travel in a hundred years?

He could be at any part of Asia or Europe or Africa, with much smaller party than Alexander’s army. He could have travel one end to another, such as far east (eg China) and far west (eg Spain), back and forth, 4, 5, 6 times? More?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

yes, it leave many unanswered questions if the flood was local.

if the flood was local, and Noah knew when and where the Flood would occur, then why take a hundred years to build the Ark, when he could have easily migrated to a location, safe from the Flood.

It took alexander the Great to travel from Greece to India (more precisely the Indus Valley), 7 years. And that with sizeable army following him.

Noah have far more time than Alexander, so imagine how far Noah travel in a hundred years?

He could be at any part of Asia or Europe or Africa, with much smaller party than Alexander’s army. He could have travel one end to another, such as far east (eg China) and far west (eg Spain), back and forth, 4, 5, 6 times? More?

Every time some floodist comes up with some wild scheme for how it happened, they open up more questions than the schemes answer and, not surprisingly, have no answers for those questions.

If God could protect trees from miles of turbid, brackish water, why couldn't he just put Noah and and representatives of all living things under the same sort of deflector shield He used to save the trees? Why an ark at all in that case also?

The magic of magic answers of today seem much more imaginative than the magic answers of the past too. Ancient authors knew about boats and the power of local floods, but they didn't know about all the stuff we do that floodists can now use to speculate on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

yes, it leave many unanswered questions if the flood was local.

if the flood was local, and Noah knew when and where the Flood would occur, then why take a hundred years to build the Ark, when he could have easily migrated to a location, safe from the Flood.

It took alexander the Great to travel from Greece to India (more precisely the Indus Valley), 7 years. And that with sizeable army following him.

Noah have far more time than Alexander, so imagine how far Noah travel in a hundred years?

He could be at any part of Asia or Europe or Africa, with much smaller party than Alexander’s army. He could have travel one end to another, such as far east (eg China) and far west (eg Spain), back and forth, 4, 5, 6 times? More?

He could have gone to some place where they don't have global flood myths. That would probably mean it was high ground.