Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Jose Fly]

Mountains can form much more rapidly than assumed, and factors involved can contribute to their formation, including Continental drift, magma, and plate tectonics. So taking all this into consideration you cannot argue against the possibility of mountains forming rapidly during and after the flood period. Nor can you deny the evidence that mountains during the pre-flood period may well have been significantly low.

Note the creationist bait-n-switch.....it starts with "some mountains may form in mere millions of years, rather than tens of millions" but transforms to "therefore mountains may have formed in a single year during the flood".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please tell us how old the US rocky mountains are, and
whether any of it is still rising.

Or t \he Andes, take your pick.

The Andes were formed by the quick subduction (in geologic time) of the Nazca Plate under the South American Plate. According to conventional wisdom, this happened a MERE six million years ago, which explains why the Andes have eroded so little. However, in recent years the age of the Andes has been hotly disputed. They may be as old as 14 million years old. However, this would still make them babies in geologic time.

According to Quora.com, the Andes are still in formation, although it comes in spurts.

 

[nPeace]

There is evidence that there are mountain ridges rising at 3-7 mm per year. At the rate of 5mm per year which means 200 years per meter then if every thing is steady without any accounts for change then it would take 1,770,000 years. Fairly fast for geological time. Very interesting but there are older mountain ranges that are declining in size secondary to erosion. That is all very interesting but how does that apply to the evidence of the biblical flood? Different mountain ranges rising at different rates with other decreasing at different rates. Very interesting geology and appreciate the information but it does not indicate anything about a proposed flood.

It shows you can't disprove what I said...
So taking all this into consideration you cannot argue against the possibility of mountains forming rapidly during and after the flood period. Nor can you deny the evidence that mountains during the pre-flood period may well have been significantly low.

 

[Audie]

The Andes were formed by the quick subduction (in geologic time) of the Nazca Plate under the South American Plate. According to conventional wisdom, this happened a MERE six million years ago, which explains why the Andes have eroded so little. However, in recent years the age of the Andes has been hotly disputed. They may be as old as 14 million years old. However, this would still make them babies in geologic time.

According to Quora.com, the Andes are still in formation, although it comes in spurts.

Rockies are still fresh lookin' after 50 -80 million yrs.

Still rising in places.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It shows you can't disprove what I said...
So taking all this into consideration you cannot argue against the possibility of mountains forming rapidly during and after the flood period. Nor can you deny the evidence that mountains during the pre-flood period may well have been significantly low.

No, there is plenty of evidence against such a claim. The problem is that flood believers do not make proper hypotheses, rather they only make vague hand waving arguments.

Can you do more than hand wave an argument into existence? All it takes to dismiss a hand waving argument is a wave of a hand.

 

[nPeace]

Some think assumptions are facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some think assumptions are facts.

Yes, those people are called creationists. They also regularly break the Ninth Commandment by claiming that others are making assumptions.

 

[Jose Fly]

So taking all this into consideration you cannot argue against the possibility of mountains forming rapidly during and after the flood period. Nor can you deny the evidence that mountains during the pre-flood period may well have been significantly low.

Yes we can, and we have. In order for that sort of thing to occur, the lithosphere has to be significantly less viscous, which requires it to be seriously heated. Then you have to have massive amounts of energy in very short periods of time to move the plates to the point where they form mountains. Then you have to cool all of that. Even young-earth creationists admit that none of this can happen without numerous miracles.

But of course you ignore all that like your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses here at RF.

Kinda convenient, isn't it? Ignore the posts and posters who shoot down your arguments and then declare "No one can show me to be wrong".

 

[Bear Wild]

It shows you can't disprove what I said...
So taking all this into consideration you cannot argue against the possibility of mountains forming rapidly during and after the flood period. Nor can you deny the evidence that mountains during the pre-flood period may well have been significantly low.

Except the information you have provided does argue against the flood. The rise in mountains was related to plate tectonics or do you not remember. Even at that a rapidly changing mountain range is still in the millions of years. Your argument now makes no sense. Go back to finding real science facts and stick with them. All scientific evidence argues against the flood including all that you have presented. What you have left is imaginary.

 

[Bear Wild]

It shows you can't disprove what I said...
So taking all this into consideration you cannot argue against the possibility of mountains forming rapidly during and after the flood period. Nor can you deny the evidence that mountains during the pre-flood period may well have been significantly low.

You have disproved the possibility of the biblical flood yourself with what real information you have presented.

 

[nPeace]

Except the information you have provided does argue against the flood. The rise in mountains was related to plate tectonics or do you not remember. Even at that a rapidly changing mountain range is still in the millions of years. Your argument now makes no sense. Go back to finding real science facts and stick with them. All scientific evidence argues against the flood including all that you have presented. What you have left is imaginary.

What are you talking about?
Make yourself clear, because right now you are not making any sense.
You seem to be just making bland statement without reason.
Please explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are you talking about?
Make yourself clear, because right now you are not making any sense.
You seem to be just making bland statement without reason.
Please explain.

You seriously do not understand how all of the evidence that you sited was evidence against the flood? There is one simple example that I like to use. Would you care to hear it?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I would not doubt that "Jesus", would have been every bit
as superstitious and credulous as others of his day.
I cannot make the ark story real, or false, neither can you.

Preserved Scripture teaches what Jesus taught.
Jesus based his teaching by his logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures.
So, Jesus did Not use superstitions, nor blind faith ( credulity) but what was established in Scripture.
The world scene today makes Jesus' teachings as real.
Even when men are saying, "Peace and Security..." that is a real proclaiming about peace, but it is Not real peace.
That is why Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will be the ' one ' who will bring Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[Audie]

Preserved Scripture teaches what Jesus taught.
Jesus based his teaching by his logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures.
So, Jesus did Not use superstitions, nor blind faith ( credulity) but what was established in Scripture.
The world scene today makes Jesus' teachings as real.
Even when men are saying, "Peace and Security..." that is a real proclaiming about peace, but it is Not real peace.
That is why Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will be the ' one ' who will bring Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

I know-we've all seen it a thousand times in
others, you are utterly committed to this.
Like my Uncle, who is still committed to
Mao's revolution. Dont ever get him started!

Just dont try this on me. "Preserved",
sure, you have to believe that. Believe the
unbelievable. Someone listened to a speech
and wrote it down word for word, 60 years later.

If you use logic on the OT, you see that it is a
stinking pile of manure. Six day poof and flood?
Seriously? ONLY blind faith can keep that as
"true".

Everyone in "Jesus' " time was superstitious.
No shame, they didnt know any better. Most
people still are superstitious, eve if though they
have every chance to learn better.

We get all kinds of fake
"healers" all over the world, still. And people
who believe they do real healings with
supernatural powers. Check "psychic surgeons"
in Manila, on yourube. So Jesus was a "healer".
Big amazing deal. And then he got himself killed
for trying to be a revolutionary.

You choose to think this guy was some sort of
magic man because people told stories about him
long after he died. Fine, just dont claim logic.
Blind faith is all you have. If you had more, you
would not need faith, you'd have your proof.

soo...

Then you lapse into mantra chanting.
The same stuff you could get on AM radio
all the way across the bible belt.
I am sure you are a nice person, but when it
comes to making a case, that is not for you.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm Not trying to ' make a case ' but merely posting what the Bible teaches.
Since the Bible has been preserved the Bible exists, and we can see what it teaches.

 

[Audie]

I'm Not trying to ' make a case ' but merely posting what the Bible teaches.
Since the Bible has been preserved the Bible exists, and we can see what it teaches.

You presented ideas, and gave reasons for
them being valid. That is all that "making a case"
means.

Not use superstitions, nor blind faith ( credulity) but what was established in Scripture.

You are making a case when you say that "Since the bible...."

But what is it that is established? That there was a flood?
That there used to be unicorns?

See, there are at least 40,000 established sects,
and far more independent individuals, each one of
which has a different take on what exactly the
"scripture teaches".

You have yours.

Are you the only one who gets it right?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus is the only one who gets it right according to Scripture.

 

[Bear Wild]

What are you talking about?
Make yourself clear, because right now you are not making any sense.
You seem to be just making bland statement without reason.
Please explain.

All of the geological evidence we have does not support the biblical flood. The evidence you provided shows the processes including plate tectonics and the slow process of erosion. Not a bland statement without reason; a statement that all of the geological information argues against the flood including the information you provided. How much clearer to you want it stated?

 

[Bear Wild]

Jesus is the only one who gets it right according to Scripture.

Is that exactly what Jesus said? Did Jesus actually say he was the only one who gets it right? If that is the case and he argued for Jewish law and beliefs then wouldn't Christians want to become Jewish?

 

[Audie]

Jesus is the only one who gets it right according to Scripture.

You always know what scrip means.

And scrip is always right even when it is wrong.