Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Hockeycowboy]

Uh, lets not say "fact" of being flash frozen. That
is speculation, with all evidence* being to the contrary.

Ok..flash-frozen requires a temperature of -150F.
Does the hypothesis I support -- that the animals died due to sudden, drastic climate changes -- necessitate such a low temperature? Nope.

Minus 100 is not going to flash freeze a mammoth.

The coldest temperature recorded in Alaska is 80 degrees below zero.

That'll work fine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I agree. It would be about the same fight as if I wrote a paper condemning some aspect of Chinese history or culture.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok..flash-frozen requires a temperature of -150F.
Does the hypothesis I support -- that the animals died due to sudden, drastic climate changes -- necessitate such a low temperature? Nope.



That'll work fine.

According to the evidence, none of the fossil remains in question were flash frozen. There. Your puzzle is solved and you do not have to invent a convoluted, impossible and illogical mechanism with no supporting evidence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

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!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"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.

I believe you have touched on most of the arguments offered and even highlighted the logic and credibility of those offering them.

Many years ago, I took an animal conservation course that was taught by a mammalogist. It was mentioned in that course, that the extinction of North American megafauna coincided with the evidence demonstrating the arrival of people to the continent. While the faunas of Asia and Africa had grown up with man and tended to remain out of spear range, the North American fauna had not been under that sort of selection and were "easy pickens" for the hunting technology of the day. I do not know if current views reflect this, but it does make sense and does fit the evidence.

I have seen some tricks played with radiometric dating that are not ignorance, but clearly fraud. Most people do not have enough knowledge of chemistry to even understand it and my experience with creationists has lead me to even lower expectations.

I missed all the meetings so they threw me out of the conspiracy. I do not even get the free beer stein.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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!

LOL! I love the attacks on the Grand Canyon. They become more irrational every year.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"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.

I forgot to mention this, but in tracking down that information I ran across several critiques of Hibben's claims about "boxcar loads of dead mammals" in "vast" Alaskan muck. Followups by subsequent researchers found none of what he described and concluded that he was making most of it up or exaggerating it on a "vast" scale.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

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?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

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?

 

[Audie]

Ok..flash-frozen requires a temperature of -150F.
Does the hypothesis I support -- that the animals died due to sudden, drastic climate changes -- necessitate such a low temperature? Nope.



That'll work fine.

It does not seem to flash freeze the moose.

And the fact that on thawing the mammoths prove to
be putrid kinda says they did not freeze to USDA
standards

No evidence for your hypo-thesis there.

 

[Audie]

I forgot to mention this, but in tracking down that information I ran across several critiques of Hibben's claims about "boxcar loads of dead mammals" in "vast" Alaskan muck. Followups by subsequent researchers found none of what he described and concluded that he was making most of it up or exaggerating it on a "vast" scale.

Univ Ak Fbks has a frozen long horn bison.

The herds alluded to in the woo woo press are unknown
other than in the woo woo press.

 

[Audie]

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!

If some do not show erosion, others do. So.....?

Google "unconformity, grand canyon".

You are talking to people who have actually studied geology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Global Flood evidence:

4.The numerous Flood legends (exceeding 250, one anthropologist says near 1,000), that share many similarities, some strikingly so, that indicates a common source.

Not all cultures have flood myths. Not all flood myths are the same. In some cultures, the flood myths are about local flooding.

The most amusing part of your "evidence" is that it is clear that the biblical story is plagiarized from the numerous versions of the older, Mesopotamian, "Epic of Gilgamesh" that would have been known to the writer or writers of Genesis. Versions of that story probably account for a significant portion of the flood myths you claim above.

Cultural myths are evidence that some cultures told stories about floods and do not provide support that a global flood occurred.

5.Furthermore, the Bible clearly states, in Psalms 104, that the Flood was the cause of Earth’s mountains reaching such great heights. (Due to the underground waters spewing upward, and the land settling downward.) This would mean the high mountainous ranges we have today, like the Alps, the Himalayas, the Andes, and others, did not exist before the Flood; they are relatively young in formation. Some were even underwater prior to the Flood — see #6. (Not that the rocks are young, but that the features they form, are new, geologically speaking. What do we see? We observe crisp, well-defined features! If these mountains were millions of years old, we would see weathered, rounded features, due to the extreme wind and other erosion forces that they constantly endure. But we don’t! (This evidence is the easiest of all the geological facts to see...yet to me the most overlooked.)

I find nothing clearly stated in that chapter of Psalms that supports your claims. In fact, verse 5 (Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever), could be interpreted to refute your claim, since it states that the Lord made the earth as it is and nothing has changed since before the mythical flood.

6.[related to #5]The marine creatures discovered on the tops of many mountain ranges, even on Mt. Everest — gigantic clams, some measuring 5 feet or more across, found in the closed position, indicating (again) that these creatures experienced a catastrophic event, leading to their quick death. (Clams in natural death, die w/ their shells open.) All remain exposed....if they’re millions of years old, why aren’t they eroded, also? Because these particular ones died at the Flood!!

Aside from these giant clams, is there anything else? How do you know that these were not the victims of a local event? What evidence are you using to separate out global from local events. You have not said.

They were buried and that covering has eroded in some cases and some probably have eroded themselves. Can you say they have not with an honest face?

You are making claims that are all after the fact of your primary source and outside the scope of your primary source. Everything you do is speculation and it has already been answered by science with logical and legitimate answers or your claims make no sense at all. The only one I cannot deal with well involves your claims of naval architecture. Since I am not a specialist, I will have to continue my research and review.

I’ve presented a lot of evidence. Are you open-minded enough, to consider it now?

You presented a lot of something. I wouldn't be comfortable calling it all evidence if it were my argument. I am open-minded. The problem is that you do not seem to be. It is either your conclusion or nothing.

EDIT: Well, it’s been over a day since I posted, and it’s obvious some simply aren’t open-minded enough; they are so biased even to the point where they attack the poster....me....rather than debate the evidence.
Sad but expected.

This is a non sequitur. Not receiving an immediate response to your Gish gallop does not immediately lead to your conclusion. That is just you pre-loading ad hominem and exercising the prerogative of a closed mind. Of course, the latter is just my opinion based on your evidence.

 

[Audie]

According to the evidence, none of the fossil remains in question were flash frozen. There. Your puzzle is solved and you do not have to invent a convoluted, impossible and illogical mechanism with no supporting evidence.

They should be a whole lot fresher than they are, if
flash frozen while alive! "Appalling stench" would
not be among the words people use, describing them!


"You mean to say they were flash frozen, then thawed and
were gnawed by flash frozen scavangers and later got putrid
and THEN were flash frozen for good? "

Should be askin' the cowboy these kinda questions
in a courtroom setting.

But that would be cruel.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting, that that's all you can say.

Why don't you provide a counter argument, other than just saying, "you're wrong"?
Because you can't find any other interpretation of the evidence that meets with scientific consensus.

Only the Global Flood satisfactorily explains the evidence.

But science can't accept that. Oh well....

It might explain it if all your evidence "vast heards" was of the same age. Of course that leaves you to provide evidence for the physically impossible "atmospheric water curtain" or whatever you call it. Or how the entire enterprise could reasonably be carried out given the technology and resources of eight people. I'm sure that you can come up with further conjecture that you cannot support and that leads to demands of further unsupported claims and conjecture, but that only works for as long as you can stay in front of an intelligent audience on the run.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They should be a whole lot fresher than they are, if
flash frozen while alive! "Appalling stench" would
not be among the words people use, describing them!


"You mean to say they were flash frozen, then thawed and
were gnawed by flash frozen scavangers and later got putrid
and THEN were flash frozen for good? "

Should be askin' the cowboy these kinda questions
in a courtroom setting.

But that would be cruel.

Some reports by the people that actually made the discoveries indicate that the flesh was in a corrupted state when it was unearthed frozen. Based on those facts, the idea that these animals were killed by flash freezing is ridiculous.

That thought has occurred to me as well. It is possible that they could have experienced multiple freeze/thaw cycles before finally being frozen, but there is no evidence that this was the case in order for the original claimant to make his original claim. Well. That was a rather awkward sentence. Essentially, from the evidence, this could not be known. Unless there is some way to determine this as well. In any event, the claim is that these were flash frozen and recovered in pristine, flavorful and edible condition. That, they were not.

 

[Audie]

Hockey- if yiu respond to nothing else, that
thing about clams?

Ever dug clams? MOST of the ones I have dug uo
looked fine until it turned out they were long dead,
full of sand.

Your idea about it indicating "live when..." is
plain wrong as a yone who ever dug clams knows.

I would like to see if you have the capability of
admitting yiu are wrong on that point.

If not, I guess I will move you to ig city, to avoid
any temptation to try again to talk any sense to yiu.

 

[Audie]

Some reports by the people that actually made the discoveries indicate that the flesh was in a corrupted state when it was unearthed frozen. Based on those facts, the idea that these animals were killed by flash freezing is ridiculous.

That thought has occurred to me as well. It is possible that they could have experienced multiple freeze/thaw cycles before finally being frozen, but there is no evidence that this was the case in order for the original claimant to make his original claim. Well. That was a rather awkward sentence. Essentially, from the evidence, this could not be known. Unless there is some way to determine this as well. In any event, the claim is that these were flash frozen and recovered in pristine, flavorful and edible condition. That, they were not.

If it happened as cowboy describes there would
have been no scavengers to gnaw on them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They should be a whole lot fresher than they are, if
flash frozen while alive! "Appalling stench" would
not be among the words people use, describing them!


"You mean to say they were flash frozen, then thawed and
were gnawed by flash frozen scavangers and later got putrid
and THEN were flash frozen for good? "

Should be askin' the cowboy these kinda questions
in a courtroom setting.

But that would be cruel.

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If it happened as cowboy describes there would
have been no scavengers to gnaw on them.

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