• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Flood Evidences — revised

sooda

Veteran Member
So what if he is. If he told the truth, then, there is
corroborating evidence; it should be well known,
at least recorded SOMEWHERE besides his book
that this amazing find took place.

Soon as cowboy finds a reference that confirms it,
great. Meantime, it goes in the same book
with Batboy's Secret Moon Base.

Hock? You care to back your claim? No?

Lindsey Williams Debunked | OccupyTheory
OccupyTheorylindsey-williams-debunked
Dec 04, 2014 · Lindsey Williams is a hoax. What Is With the NWO Conspiracies? The idea that Williams and others like him are trying to put out to the general public is that the world governments are all working together to create a single government entity. Not one like the United Nations of today.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Lindsey Williams fraud | Catmanna's Christian Commentaries
https://eternian.wordpress.com/tag/lindsey-williams-fraud
Mar 03, 2011 · Lindsey says that in 2012 that elitists plan on trying to get the U.S. dollar will lose half it’s value, thanks for the warning, but how many times do we have to hear it? And what really more is there to say then, “I’ve been a pastor for a long time, my name is Lindsey Williams, some elitists told me they plan on causing trouble in the ...
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Lindsey Williams Debunked | OccupyTheory
OccupyTheorylindsey-williams-debunked
Dec 04, 2014 · Lindsey Williams is a hoax. What Is With the NWO Conspiracies? The idea that Williams and others like him are trying to put out to the general public is that the world governments are all working together to create a single government entity. Not one like the United Nations of today.

I could tell he was a woomeister after reading a paragraph or
so of what he wrote.
I dont need convincing, and hock wont be no matter what.
So you are wasting your time.

IF he told the truth then-

It makes no difference if he is secretly a left handed lesbian
agent of the illuminatti.

Ifn ya want to look something up find a research
paper or two that confirms what I said about how
the mammoths were in bad shape before burial
and freezing.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
It may be time to run.
You are though mistepresenting what I observed-
That only woo woo sites talk about this flash freeze
stuff.

Any actual resesrch paper will point out that the animals
were rotten and usually scavenged before burial.

You keep avoiding that, for obvious reasons.

You keep avoiding making any but the most vague
statements, or irrelevancies like tusk hunters.

You may be wise to be done with me before i cut off
every escape and even you have to admit that the flood n
freeze thing is as bogus as atlantis and batboy.

The consequences could be devastating to you.

Better run now.

There’s no possibility that you could “cut off every escape,” and ‘devastate’ my understanding of history!
I presented too much evidence, supporting my view of the global deluge...

From the millions of mammoths and other animals which died catastrophically encased within the permafrost and ice fields all across the extreme northern latitudes,

to the hundreds of Flood legends showcasing many similarities,

to the Greek, Roman, Hindu, Norse, etc., myths’ parallels that depict life as described before the Flood @ Genesis 6:1-4,

to the geologically-young-looking high altitude mountain ranges w/ very little erosion evident,

to those ideal ratios of the Ark outlined in Genesis producing a very seaworthy vessel,

to the Chinese character for “ship”,

to the “Day of the Dead” and similar celebrations held by various cultures around the world at the same time of year that Genesis says the Flood occurred, Jewish calendar!


You keep avoiding that, for obvious reasons.

What are “obvious reasons” for me to avoid the suggestion of scavenging before burial? (BTW, the discoveries indicate some were scavenged, not all...and comparatively few have been found.)
That is no fact...the scavenging could have happened after burial, as I stated...during a warmer-than-usual period, or a few warmer periods! Some remains have been found in, and dredged up from, the Bering Sea.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
There’s no possibility that you could “cut off every escape,” and ‘devastate’ my understanding of history!
I presented too much evidence, supporting my view of the global deluge...


to the hundreds of Flood legends showcasing many similarities,

to the Greek, Roman, Hindu, Norse, etc., myths’ parallels that depict life as described before the Flood @ Genesis 6:1-4,

to the geologically-young-looking high altitude mountain ranges w/ very little erosion evident,

to those ideal ratios of the Ark outlined in Genesis producing a very seaworthy vessel,

to the Chinese character for “ship”,

to the “Day of the Dead” and similar celebrations held by various cultures around the world at the same time of year that Genesis says the Flood occurred, Jewish calendar!


You keep avoiding that, for obvious reasons.

What are “obvious reasons” for me to avoid the suggestion of scavenging before burial? (BTW, the discoveries indicate some were scavenged, not all...and comparatively few have been found.)
That is no fact...the scavenging could have happened after burial, as I stated...during a warmer-than-usual period, or a few warmer periods! Some remains have been found in, and dredged up from, the Bering Sea.

Perhaps you dont understand the principle of falsification.
One could gather all manner of "evidence", plausible,
feasible and specious-such as yours, there, for flood,
but no theory is safe from being disproved.

Say you are accused of murder in Boston whilst
you were demonstrably having tea with the Queen,
at Buckingham.

The existence of polar ice deeply predating your "flood"
is an easily understood disproof of flood theory.
There is is. Not much you can do about it.

Still-
I must insist on sticking to the immediate topic, of
your mammoths, not being distracted with your
(specious) Chinese character argument etc.

From the millions of mammoths and other animals which died catastrophically encased within the permafrost and ice fields all across the extreme northern latitudes,

....and comparatively few have been found.)


Even you will note that you are trying to have it
both ways. So we can let your "millions" be
quietly dropped.

Next, to the "catastropohnically encased".
The "catastrophe", being something
only to be found in woo woo, is similarly
discounted.
Further, you strongly imply that these
"millions" died as a result of being buried
or in your quaint terminology, "catastrohically
encased". No science, no research will agree
with this. It is simply made up to force fit to the bible
story as you choose to interpret it.

Now, we are in agreement that some few frozen carcasses
have been found, a long horn bison here, a mammoth
there, for a total of I believe, about fifty mammoths.
(not "millions"). The "millions" and "vast herds"
is made up hyperbole.

Now, apparently it is your claim that the ones
(all of them) that are decayed, and the ones
scavenged (most of them) were somehow
brought to the surface, thawed sufficiently
to have been scavenged and start to
stink tho quite fresh when flash frozen.
THEN they were reburied and refrozen.

I trust you can see the absurdity of this
notion and appreciate too that your explanation
is simply ad hoc, made up to suit the facts.

That the weather / climate has changed and keeps
changing is not in dispute.

If you care to dispute the research which shows the
permafrost has stayed in its current frozen condition
for tens of thousands of years, you are doing so
from a position of zero knowledge, zero research,
but an abundance of ideology.

Likewise if you wish to dispute the age of the ice on
Greenland and Antarctica, you are welcome to do so.
Many of our creationists do claim to know more than
any scientist on earth. They only lack data, for a Nobel!

Perhaps you have a way to show that all the work by
all the researchers is phony; a Nobel awaits.

Unless you can find fatal flaw if the research that
disproves the flood theory, no amount of specious
similarities in flood stories, or silly misunderstanding
of how Chinese characters are formed, or day of the
dead celebrations is of the slightest consequence.

It is as valuable as saying that the murderer in Boston
had brown Bruno Mali shoes... just like yours!! Guilt,
beyond a doubt!

For a summary-
-polar ice disproves flood theory
-freeze / thaw, uncover / rebury as an
explanation for the rot and scavenge is too silly
even for you
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
There’s no possibility that you could “cut off every escape,” and ‘devastate’ my understanding of history!
I presented too much evidence, supporting my view of the global deluge...

From the millions of mammoths and other animals which died catastrophically encased within the permafrost and ice fields all across the extreme northern latitudes,

to the hundreds of Flood legends showcasing many similarities,

to the Greek, Roman, Hindu, Norse, etc., myths’ parallels that depict life as described before the Flood @ Genesis 6:1-4,

to the geologically-young-looking high altitude mountain ranges w/ very little erosion evident,

to those ideal ratios of the Ark outlined in Genesis producing a very seaworthy vessel,

to the Chinese character for “ship”,

to the “Day of the Dead” and similar celebrations held by various cultures around the world at the same time of year that Genesis says the Flood occurred, Jewish calendar!


You keep avoiding that, for obvious reasons.

What are “obvious reasons” for me to avoid the suggestion of scavenging before burial? (BTW, the discoveries indicate some were scavenged, not all...and comparatively few have been found.)
That is no fact...the scavenging could have happened after burial, as I stated...during a warmer-than-usual period, or a few warmer periods! Some remains have been found in, and dredged up from, the Bering Sea.

Creationists don't exist in other countries.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Issue #1...
From the millions of mammoths and other animals which died catastrophically encased within the permafrost and ice fields all across the extreme northern latitudes,

....and comparatively few have been found.)


Even you will note that you are trying to have it
both ways. So we can let your "millions" be
quietly dropped.

No. You might think I contradicted myself.... I wondered if you’d think that, when I wrote it (at least I know you’re thoroughly reading my posts, it seems; t y), but it’s like this....say someone randomly scattered millions of green marbles in my back yard, camouflaged by the grass. I can’t see them, but I step off my patio and immediately step on 3, under my foot...my next step, I find 4 under my foot; next step, I find another 4. So i bend down to examine, and in just a few sq.ft., I find 50.
In another corner of my yard, I examine, and find another 50!
I can extrapolate how many are in my yard.

Get it?

Here’s a link (which I thought I had posted):

Who are the hunters of rare mammoth tusks in Russia?

Excerpts:

“Now Siberia is a massive mammoth graveyard, and it’s estimated that the remains of hundreds of thousands of individual animals lie buried in the permafrost.”

(** I say millions**)

“In 2012, [scientist] Dalén visited a site with around 30 tunnels. It had been excavated a few years previously when the hunters took the tusks of a baby mammoth they had found.

Dalén and the team wanted to recover the body, but in the repeated thaws of successive summers, the tunnels had become unstable.

(Repeated thaws support my theory, of scavenging after burial.)
 

Audie

Veteran Member
EREere
Issue #1...


No. You might think I contradicted myself.... I wondered if you’d think that, when I wrote it (at least I know you’re thoroughly reading my posts, it seems; t y), but it’s like this....say someone randomly scattered millions of green marbles in my back yard, camouflaged by the grass. I can’t see them, but I step off my patio and immediately step on 3, under my foot...my next step, I find 4 under my foot; next step, I find another 4. So i bend down to examine, and in just a few sq.ft., I find 50.
In another corner of my yard, I examine, and find another 50!
I can extrapolate how many are in my yard.

Get it?

Here’s a link (which I thought I had posted):

Who are the hunters of rare mammoth tusks in Russia?

Excerpts:

“Now Siberia is a massive mammoth graveyard, and it’s estimated that the remains of hundreds of thousands of individual animals lie buried in the permafrost.”

(** I say millions**)

“In 2012, [scientist] Dalén visited a site with around 30 tunnels. It had been excavated a few years previously when the hunters took the tusks of a baby mammoth they had found.

Dalén and the team wanted to recover the body, but in the repeated thaws of successive summers, the tunnels had become unstable.

(Repeated thaws support my theory, of scavenging after burial.)

The vast majority of mammoth finds are small fragments
and single or a scattered few bones, as is the case
with all terrestrial vertebrate fossils, whether buried in clay, sandstone, or any other deposit.

No millions of frozen ones.

Of course, the total number that lived in the far north over
a period of tens of thousands of years would leave at least
a small percent as fossils.

Why not just admit you made up the "millions"?

Your claim of "vast" herds living at any one time is bogus,
unsupported by evidence. As is them being buried in their millions is one catastrophe.

Quite the contrary; the frozen ones are tens of thousands of years different in age, one from another. (another disproof of you flood catastrophe theory)

Again, a Nobel if you can show otherwise. Ignore that
point, like the one about the polar ice, for lo, danger lies
there.

I believe you are capable of better thinking than to say
that thawing in an excavation supports your claim
about thaw / scavenge. This is your chance to prove me
wrong.

How about getting to how it explains how ALL of the
mammoth finds were brought to the surface in a thaw,
got rotten and / or chewed on, then were reburied and
refrozen?

You speak of thinking as something others might try.
Give it a try, come up with a reasonable scenario for
how that would happen.

ETA your marble analogy is very lame. The finds
are scattered over tens of thousands of square miles,
nor all in one place.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
That the weather / climate has changed and keeps
changing is not in dispute.

That’s right. And because dating methodologies rely on the on the axiom, “the present is the key to the past”....

dating methods cannot be trusted.

“Radiocarbon Dating
Of course, the most important and most accepted argument against the Bible’s chronology leading back to the creation of the first man and woman (around 7,500 years ago by our calculations) is radiocarbon dating. And the figures that scientists provide through this method are said to carry the first human back at least 59,000 years. How does the radiocarbon ‘clock’ work?

Radiocarbons are formed when cosmic radiation bombards nitrogen molecules, turning them into carbon 14 (14C), which are thereafter consumed by plants and animals. However, when these living things die, they stop taking it in. And because 14C has a known rate of decay, all a scientist has to do is measure the amount of radiation in dead plants and animals to tell us how long ago they lived (with an accuracy of plus or minus 40 to 100 years). So, this is in fact a pretty accurate way of determining the age of things that were once alive.

However, nothing is ever quite that simple. For, as it turns out, the amount of 14C varies according to how much cosmic radiation is bombarding the earth during a particular period. And according to scientists, this has changed over time. Notice how this is explained in the Wikipedia article, ‘Radiocarbon dating,’ under the subheading, Calibration:
‘Dates may be expressed as either uncalibrated or calibrated years (the latter abbreviated as cal or cal.). A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity, which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth’s magnetosphere. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth’s climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere’s 14C fraction.’

In addition, notice this quotation that is found under the subheading, Measurements:
‘This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).’

In fact, other sources limit the accuracy to less than 40,000 years. So, any dates provided by 14C testing of 40,000 years or more can’t be trusted, because ‘there is simply too much background contamination to be sure of the accuracy.’

And recognize that 14C testing is the only means for determining the ages of things that were once living.

Notice that much of the 14C dating of things carries us back 5,000 years, and then we see huge jumps (to 60,000 years or more). Could this be due to the fact that there was much less cosmic radiation hitting the earth prior to the great Downpour (flood) spoken of in Genesis Chapter 6? For if our earth had once been protected from such radiation by huge quantities of stratospheric ice crystals (as many have suggested) which fell to the earth as a flood, then the radiocarbon and luminescence dating clocks are unreliable and are indicating much older dates for materials than may actually be true.”

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_14



Re: polar ice, that you seem so fond of...

The Flood wouldn’t have melted it. If anything, it added to and compressed it, since the Flood would have drastically altered the climate world wide.

Gotta go.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
As I excerpted from the link:

“30 tunnels”...in one area.

I have no time for this.

Then dont start something you cannot finish.
You want to just dump a gish then take no
responsibility for your falsehoods.

Your density extrapolation method indicates that in
South Dakota there were so many mammoths
that it was virtually standing room only.

mammoth site black hills south dakota - Google Search:

When you have time from your busy schedule, do
try to figure out this thaw-uncover-rot-rebury thing.

There may be a Nobel, right there!

Ponder not, nay, ponder not that polar ice
disproves any flood theory.
For lo, therein lies the dissolution of Faith.
(in woo woo).
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Re: polar ice, that you seem so fond of...

The Flood wouldn’t have melted it. If anything, it added to and compressed it, since the Flood would have drastically altered the climate world wide.

Gotta go.

Seriously? You just made that up.

I guess you never heard that ice floats.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That’s right. And because dating methodologies rely on the on the axiom, “the present is the key to the past”....

dating methods cannot be trusted.

“Radiocarbon Dating
Of course, the most important and most accepted argument against the Bible’s chronology leading back to the creation of the first man and woman (around 7,500 years ago by our calculations) is radiocarbon dating. And the figures that scientists provide through this method are said to carry the first human back at least 59,000 years. How does the radiocarbon ‘clock’ work?

Radiocarbons are formed when cosmic radiation bombards nitrogen molecules, turning them into carbon 14 (14C), which are thereafter consumed by plants and animals. However, when these living things die, they stop taking it in. And because 14C has a known rate of decay, all a scientist has to do is measure the amount of radiation in dead plants and animals to tell us how long ago they lived (with an accuracy of plus or minus 40 to 100 years). So, this is in fact a pretty accurate way of determining the age of things that were once alive.

However, nothing is ever quite that simple. For, as it turns out, the amount of 14C varies according to how much cosmic radiation is bombarding the earth during a particular period. And according to scientists, this has changed over time. Notice how this is explained in the Wikipedia article, ‘Radiocarbon dating,’ under the subheading, Calibration:
‘Dates may be expressed as either uncalibrated or calibrated years (the latter abbreviated as cal or cal.). A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity, which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth’s magnetosphere. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth’s climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere’s 14C fraction.’

In addition, notice this quotation that is found under the subheading, Measurements:
‘This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).’

In fact, other sources limit the accuracy to less than 40,000 years. So, any dates provided by 14C testing of 40,000 years or more can’t be trusted, because ‘there is simply too much background contamination to be sure of the accuracy.’

And recognize that 14C testing is the only means for determining the ages of things that were once living.

Notice that much of the 14C dating of things carries us back 5,000 years, and then we see huge jumps (to 60,000 years or more). Could this be due to the fact that there was much less cosmic radiation hitting the earth prior to the great Downpour (flood) spoken of in Genesis Chapter 6? For if our earth had once been protected from such radiation by huge quantities of stratospheric ice crystals (as many have suggested) which fell to the earth as a flood, then the radiocarbon and luminescence dating clocks are unreliable and are indicating much older dates for materials than may actually be true.”

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_14



Re: polar ice, that you seem so fond of...

The Flood wouldn’t have melted it. If anything, it added to and compressed it, since the Flood would have drastically altered the climate world wide.

Gotta go.
Please, if you want to claim that carbon dating is not accurate at least find a reliable source. Ignorant (at best) sources are of no value. By the way, no one has proposed using C14 dating for polar ice cores since it is only good for 50,000 years at best. Well younger ice could be dated, but one can also date that by counting annual layers. Measuring thickness, etc..
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Please, if you want to claim that carbon dating is not accurate at least find a reliable source. Ignorant (at best) sources are of no value. By the way, no one has proposed using C14 dating for polar ice cores since it is only good for 50,000 years at best. Well younger ice could be dated, but one can also date that by counting annual layers. Measuring thickness, etc..


When I mentioned C14 of course I knew
we'd soon see him revert to woo woo sites. Tsk.

With God, the angels, the bible, and all of reality
on the creoside, you'd think such shabby sources
of info would not be needed. Nor all the bold font.

There is an unclaimed Nobel for anyone who can
prove C14 dating is no good.

Another for the one who can show the ice was
compressed and added to by ye flood.

If our hero comes back I would like to see how
he figures that polar ice would not float.
Too heavy?
I got it...it was compressed! And thus lost its
buoyancy!

As for the failure of anyone in any core to find
the flood layer in the ice?
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There is an unclaimed Nobel for anyone who can
prove C14 dating is no good.
But I see so many articles making that claim:rolleyes:

To be serious C14 dating is used in some ice cores. But one can only do that in relatively shallow areas where the individual layers of annual deposition can be counted as well. Counting thousands upon thousands of layers is tedious and adds the chance of human error. C14 dating destroys part of the ice core. So they each have their drawbacks. The problem is that both can and have been used for those younger dates and the problems that the bogus article brought up do not seem to occur. I wonder why?

But for deeper layers other methods are used such as Argon/Argon, 238U to 234U and others. For anything more than 50,000 years old neither county not C14 are viable options. But by that time we are far beyond any flood date and the ice still does not float in the world of the creationist.
 
Top