Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[nPeace]

For starters, Happy Birthday!

Actually, I do know. As I indicated, mine was a rhetorical question - a rhetorical device for making a statement in the form of a question. As I also already indicated, we would be forced to account for the sum of the mountains of preexisting evidence which all points compellingly to unguided, unplanned, naturalistic evolution plus the piece of evidence that falsified Darwin's theory, and that can only be done by postulating a very powerful agent or agents who went to great lengths to deceive us that nature, not them, created the tree of life. You didn't address that point when made last time (see immediately below)





No, I don't get the point, and can't see any relationship between my comment and your reply. We've reached the end of this line of inquiry.





Once again, I fail to see the relationship between our two comments. Suffice it to say that we have no incentive to trade in an idea that is useful in the many ways I cataloged for one that can't be used at all. I could give many other examples of useful theories that will never go away even if they are tweaked a little, and will not be replaced by useless ideas. Religious ideas like biblical creationism just aren't useful. It can't do any of those things I listed. It can't explain anything or be put to use.





The one I just gave. Creationism has no practical value and has added nothing to human culture but another creation story and a series of court cases resisting its imposition on school children.



But you are unconvincing. It looks more like you work the evidence to conform to faith based beliefs. Almost without exception, unbelievers come to different conclusions than those getting answers from their Bibles. Why do you suppose that is if they're all using the same reasoning on the same evidence?

The answer is that they are not using the same reasoning on the same evidence. The two methods of evaluating evidence are very different. One should look at the evidence first - all of it - and come to sound conclusions from it, whatever those conclusions are.

The faith-based method begins with a premise that it attempts to present as a conclusion following from whatever argument is back engineered and placed in front of it. I call this premise masking as a conclusion a pseudo-conclusion.

Of course, if the premise is false, the evidence won't support it, and therefore needs to be massaged, sifting out whatever it is thought to support the pseudo-conclusion / premise following it, and disregarding that which is contradictory as we have seen in this thread. The evidence against the biblical flood is overwhelming, but all of that is ignored when filtered through the lens of a faith-based confirmation bias.

That's not going where the evidence leads.



Every living thing is a transitional form. Evolution never stops. It can't be stopped except with extinctions. Gene pools are always changing from generation to generation. Thus, you and I are a transitional forms between our ancestors and descendants.



All living populations evolve at all times just as all living languages continually evolve.



There is no known animal or any other living thing that exists but should not if Darwin's theory is correct. If that weren't the case, that organism would falsify the theory.

Would you mind starting from the top, because when I read what you say, it seems you are missing my point, and you seem to think I haven't addressed your point, when I think I have.
So one at a time, say what you mean and give me an example... while Miss Snider snides away.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I see you are referring to the climate and vegetation,
but again decline specifics.

I will remind you that every (all of them) scientific
publication on the flora associated with the frozen
mammoths is arctic / subarctic species.

You've no call to be rude to me, or suggest that
the problem is with my abilities.

You claimed that the climate was "temperate".
Yet the vegetation is that of the arctic.

Cannot both be correct. So we have specimens
collected, identified, and published in many different
papers by specialists.

And we have your opinion.

There is, btw, a rather simple and well understood
reason that the far north could support more
grazing animals then, than it does now. I've
been aware of it for a number of years.
It has nothing to do with climate as such.

Now, your evidence of a different climate then,
other than blaming me for not seeing what is
not true?

"There is, btw, a rather simple and well understood
reason..."

Well, post it, then!

Address the question of how the present Arctic climate could provide vegetation for and support the vast herds of grazing animals that have been discovered killed in a catastrophic determination.

I mean, if the climate change was gradual, these animals could have simply moved south.

The evidence depicts a quick, sudden death.

NOVA | Megabeasts' Sudden Death | The Extinction Debate | PBS

"And we have your opinion."

No, we have the Bible.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You're not what?
Using science in an attempt to back up the ark story? You appear to be trying to do that.
Using God magic? You did that.

No Gish galloping here. Let's just try speaking to the point.

So...you ignore the evidence, too? I see that no one has dealt with this facet.

If you can't explain, ignore it.

 

[blü 2]

Have you read the Bible before?

Not in its entirety, but a fair sampling.

But if the bible anywhere defines God in such a manner that if I ever encounter a real suspect I'll be able to determine whether it's God or not, I'd be obliged if you'll quote me that part.

 

[Audie]

"There is, btw, a rather simple and well understood
reason..."

Well, post it, then!

Address the question of how the present Arctic climate could provide vegetation for and support the vast herds of grazing animals that have been discovered killed in a catastrophic determination.

I mean, if the climate change was gradual, these animals could have simply moved south.

The evidence depicts a quick, sudden death.

NOVA | Megabeasts' Sudden Death | The Extinction Debate | PBS

"And we have your opinion."

No, we have the Bible.

Post it?
I already did. See post with video. The vid will give
more details, but I did address it.

But you, you are still evading my question.

Wonder why.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Post it?
I already did. See post with video. The vid will give
more details, but I did address it.

But you, you are still evading my question.

Wonder why.

I did answer your question (or thought I did), despite your patronizing attitude. I've half a mind to ignore you altogether (as I do others, who attack my mental accuity and reasoning ability). I had you on ignore, but I restored you and others, specifically for this thread.

Please, ask your question again. Although I think I answered it, by asking another question of you (which I don't think you answered).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For those with an actual interest in the
pleistocene in high latitudes, here is a video.

(Notice all the mosquitoes!! The vid does not
begin to show how bad they are. )

Pay particular attention to how tall grass will
replace tundra or boreal forest. I saw that
for myself, actually, in Alaska.

Interesting video, but I saw only a few animals, not vast herds.

Plus, it did nothing to explain the extinctions.

No one is really touching that aspect, because I'm sure most are aware there is no globally accepted scientific explanation; all the evidence just doesn't fit any one interpretation, that scientists are willing to accept.

The Flood, however, does.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Not in its entirety, but a fair sampling.

But if the bible anywhere defines God in such a manner that if I ever encounter a real suspect I'll be able to determine whether it's God or not, I'd be obliged if you'll quote me that part.

1 John 4:8....."God is love."

Someday, I think, you'll find this out.
(As long as you don't wilfully hurt others.)

 

[Jose Fly]

Plus, it did nothing to explain the extinctions.

No one is really touching that aspect, because I'm sure most are aware there is no globally accepted scientific explanation; all the evidence just doesn't fit any one interpretation, that scientists are willing to accept.

The Flood, however, does.

At this point I've concluded that you are never going to summarize the data and demonstrate how the Biblical flood explains it better than the long-standing explanation from science (and I mean that in terms of what Audie's been trying to get you to address and my attempts to get you to do so with mountain ranges).

So instead, I'll try to get you to understand why your failure to do that is such a problem.

You're trying to make a positive case that the Biblical flood is the best explanation for the state of the world around us, and you're attempting to do so to a bunch of empirically-minded people, some of whom are actual scientists. So imagine yourself at a scientific conference. You're introduced, the title of your presentation is up on the screen, and you walk on stage. Now what?

What you've done so far in this thread would be the equivalent of your "presentation" consisting of you demanding the audience make their case for the scientific model, and if they can't, the Biblical flood wins.

I hope you appreciate how absurd that would be. And once you appreciate that, you should understand how your "presentation" is coming across here.

Either you can specifically demonstrate how the Biblical flood is a superior explanation or you can't. So far, it looks like you can't but you won't admit it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

At this point I've concluded that you are never going to summarize the data and demonstrate how the Biblical flood explains it better than the long-standing explanation from science (and I mean that in terms of what Audie's been trying to get you to address and my attempts to get you to do so with mountain ranges).

So instead, I'll try to get you to understand why your failure to do that is such a problem.

You're trying to make a positive case that the Biblical flood is the best explanation for the state of the world around us, and you're attempting to do so to a bunch of empirically-minded people, some of whom are actual scientists. So imagine yourself at a scientific conference. You're introduced, the title of your presentation is up on the screen, and you walk on stage. Now what?

What you've done so far in this thread would be the equivalent of your "presentation" consisting of you demanding the audience make their case for the scientific model, and if they can't, the Biblical flood wins.

I hope you appreciate how absurd that would be. And once you appreciate that, you should understand how your "presentation" is coming across here.

Either you can specifically demonstrate how the Biblical flood is a superior explanation or you can't. So far, it looks like you can't but you won't admit it.

"The long-standing explanation from science"? Please! Don't give me that....there isn't one! (I explained that, in a previous post.)

And I am a public speaker. But this is not the same type of venue. (I wish it was....I do better, speaking w/ props, than writing. Then again, maybe not; this crowd is a little hostile.)

 

[blü 2]

1 John 4:8....."God is love."
Someday, I think, you'll find this out.
(As long as you don't wilfully hurt others.)

I notice you've given up on the Flood nonsense. That's a good start.

Meanwhile, much as I agree that love is a major factor in my life and relationships, and across societies in general, it strikes me as odd that an evolved set of biochemical reactions, however personally valuable, are 'God'. They didn't create the universe, for example, nor do they (as such) punish the wicked or automatically become the lot of the virtuous.

And while I could run with a metaphor that to encounter love is to encounter God, I don't think that's true and it doesn't answer the question I asked you.

Which was, What test will tell me whether any real thing I suspect of being God is actually God? In other words, what real thing does the term denote? What is the quality that makes that real thing God, as distinct from a superscientist, a bush on fire, or this keyboard I'm typing on? (And don't say 'spirit' or anything like that ─ we're talking about real things here.)

 

[Jose Fly]

"The long-standing explanation from science"? Please! Don't give that....there isn't one! (I explained that, in a previous post.)

Yes, when it comes to the Himalayas, the tectonic model is both long-standing and explanitory.

And I am a public speaker. But this is not the same type of venue. (I wish it was....I do better, speaking w/ props, than writing. Then again, maybe not; this crowd is a little hostile.)

You seem to be missing the point. Regardless of the venue, your approach is fundamentally flawed. You need to stop asking everyone else to justify the scientific POV, and start justifying your explanation by showing it to be a better explanation for the data.

 

[Audie]

I did answer your question (or thought I did), despite your patronizing attitude. I've half a mind to ignore you altogether (as I do others, who attack my mental accuity and reasoning ability). I had you on ignore, but I restored you and others, specifically for this thread.

Please, ask your question again. Although I think I answered it, by asking another question of you (which I don't think you answered).

In your op you presented as fact that,
quote-

"Food...that only grow in temperate climate"
(Was found in mouth / stomach of mammoths)

ans that the earth had a "mild and pleasant climate".

Researchers have studied the 50 or so known specimens
(all but a handfull being heavily scavanged and badly
decompised before burial) and have, as researchers will,
collected and identified the plants that are associated with
them.

I have looked up some of the papers.

They identify only vegetation of the far north,
the species typical of the tundra and taiga.

I asked you to support your claim to the contrary,
regarding vegetation that only grows in temprrate
climates.

So far you have failed to do so

I wont bother to ask again, I know you cannot do
it, there is no research paper showing only (or any)
such vegetation as you claim.

Any lurker will of course see your failure.

ETA-

Large numbers of grazing animals could and
did live in the far north at one time. Just how
many is of course unknown. Buffalo, and muskoxen
are thriving and increasing in numbers today
where they are reintroduced in Alaska, Canada,
and Siberia.

Tundra and taiga can be, as is, replaced by tall
grass under some circumstances. Grass supports
grazing animals.

Think of the American praitie.

It was a vast sea of grass, but now with the
buffalo gone and fire suppressed, it will grow up
with trees and brush.

So, anyway- are you going to provide the research
paper and the species of "temperate only", or not?

A yes / no would do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Would you mind starting from the top, because when I read what you say, it seems you are missing my point, and you seem to think I haven't addressed your point, when I think I have. So one at a time, say what you mean and give me an example

That would be a bit tedious. If you have a specific question or questions, please ask it or them.

You're probably talking about the matter of falsifying Darwin's theory and how that does nothing for Christian creationists since the evidence that preceded that hypothetical falsification would remain and would need to be explained in the light of the falsification. There is no Christian explanation for the existing data with or without falsifying the theory. You never addressed that.

 

[Audie]

There is so much potential for disproving
ToE, if it were wrong, surely someone would
have noticed somethibg.

What I notice from creos is woo woo.
Saturday Evening Post article from a guy
who writes about flying saucers?

Also notice that, asked to back claims with
resesrch papers, it is a no-go.

I can back what I say.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So...you ignore the evidence, too? I see that no one has dealt with this facet.

If you can't explain, ignore it.

What evidence? The evidence does not indicate that there was a massive global flood that killed every living thing on earth except for 8 people, or that the ark story is anything other than ancient mythology.

I'm talking about your invocation of magic, as an explanation for the aspects of the ark story that don't make sense. Like when you suggest that God “altered the laws of physics” when you hit a dead end with your scientific explanation.

 

[Audie]

What evidence? The evidence does not indicate that there was a massive global flood that killed every living thing on earth except for 8 people, or that the ark story is anything other than ancient mythology.

I'm talking about your invocation of magic, as an explanation for the aspects of the ark story that don't make sense. Like when you suggest that God “altered the laws of physics” when you hit a dead end with your scientific explanation.

I have been on him to deal with the FACT that all
relevant research contradicts his "temperate" vegetation thing.
If he were correct, he'd have, ah, trumped me with a
research paper, just like that.

I of course am not the kind of girl who gives up just like that.

But-
If I go on ig for my importunate temerity, dont let it get
dropped.

 

[nPeace]

Every living thing is a transitional form. Evolution never stops. It can't be stopped except with extinctions. Gene pools are always changing from generation to generation. Thus, you and I are a transitional forms between our ancestors and descendants.

Now that's what I call philosophy.

 

[nPeace]

Not in its entirety, but a fair sampling.

But if the bible anywhere defines God in such a manner that if I ever encounter a real suspect I'll be able to determine whether it's God or not, I'd be obliged if you'll quote me that part.

So let me get this straight.
You have never encountered God, but if someone who has, presents information to you about God, you will know if it's God, or not.... Is that what you are saying?

I suggest, you will not know any such thing.
You have the option to either believe, or don't believe.
You also have the option to examine the evidence, and determine if it matches the information presented to you, and decide if it is reasonable for you to believe and accept that information.

Do you think that's reasonable?

 

[blü 2]

So let me get this straight.
You have never encountered God, but if someone who has, presents information to you about God, you will know if it's God, or not.... Is that what you are saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

The question is the reality of God. I have no trouble with an imaginary God, a god whose only existence is a concept in the heads of individuals. Such a god is anything anyone wishes, and likes Republican if I'm a Republican and Democrat if I'm a Democrat, was prayed to by the Germans in two World Wars and by the Allies in two World Wars.

My trouble is with the claim that God is real, that is, has objective existence. The way to test a claim that something or someone has objective existence is 'Show me' (let me detect God through my senses as with any other real thing). Not only can no one do that, but no one can tell me what God actually is, a necessary and sufficient definition so that if I found a candidate who was indeed real, I could tell whether it were God or not.

Can you relieve my ignorance?