Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Audie]

When one uses terms that one cannot understand or define how can that person understand the answer?

For example how new information enters the system has been explained. Would you like to go over that?

"Information" and "code" are two of the greatest boons
to equivocation / semantic games that ever have
come into the hands of creationists.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"Information" and "code" are two of the greatest boons
to equivocation / semantic games that ever have
come into the hands of creationists.

Indeed. Along with the failed idea that DNA is a blueprint... when, clearly, it is not.
"
Proof is abundant upon cursory examination of a pair of identical twins. Identical DNA.

Unique details, like fingerprints, retina patterns, iris coloration and patterning, location of skin blemishes, frekles, etc. Exact hue of hair, precise shape of hands and feet. Height (if measured to the millimeter), weight, etc.

Even CAT scans of their respective internal organs reveal significant differences in the shape and positioning.

DNA? Is not a blueprint. It's more of a directive, or a recipe--but even *that* is too precise.

 

[Jose Fly]

How does the genetic code increase the de novo information to build these parts?

Huh. So in another thread you ask pretty much the same question (about how evolution increases "genetic information"). I answer and provide a documented example. You ignore it completely. And now here you are in another thread asking the same question as if no one had ever said anything the first time you asked it.

Creationists are positively fascinating.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For example how new information enters the system has been explained.

No, not the information needed for new body features! Anatomy, etc.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Huh. So in another thread you ask pretty much the same question (about how evolution increases "genetic information"). I answer and provide a documented example. You ignore it completely. And now here you are in another thread asking the same question as if no one had ever said anything the first time you asked it.

Creationists are positively fascinating.

Actually, I was replying to another’s view, who was asking the same question. I was supporting her.

But, FYI, I found your links of the yeast cells interesting! Thanks...I’ll see what other research is available.

One reason I’m so skeptical, is because of articles such as this:
Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Even the author of the piece eventually admitted it wasn’t really evolution, in the comments section.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not the information needed for new body features! Anatomy, etc.

Really? And where is your evidence for that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I was replying to another’s view, who was asking the same question. I was supporting her.

But, FYI, I found your links of the yeast cells interesting! Thanks...I’ll see what other research is available.

One reason I’m so skeptical, is because of articles such as this:
Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Even the author of the piece eventually admitted it wasn’t really evolution, in the comments section.

Where does he admit that? Please quote in context. He seems to keep supporting the idea that it is evolution:

"Is a colony considered a multi-cellular organism?

Good question. I would not think so. Rather, the colonies could be imagined to be the first step towards evolving real multicellularity ('an organism that reproduces by making a copy of the whole, and consists of different types of cells')."

In that post he clearly claims it is evolution. Where does he say that it is not?

 

[sooda]

Can you summarize a distinct connection between the biblical flood and the "flood" on earth?

I know there is a huge desire to hook earthly events to biblical; but, to me, really, why? Do you (guys) need to prove you are right about what you believe? If it is fact, why would you want us to follow your belief it is factually true but not good for our wellbeing?

I mean, we can syncronize a lot of events while others we know is fact, but its one thing to discuss it, and another to try to find proove between this and that when its simply not important (well, at least non abrahamic views so far I know).....

Can you provide a distinct connection between earth events and the bible to where the bible to where it is more than copied events (like the building of The Church) but something specific to supernatural occurances between the events?

That, and without the Bible, can you include what earth events took place that by itself would lead us to believe there is a supernatural cause without biblical references?

Facts usually have multiple references from many different sources and not all from one study area. If everything has a foundation on the bible, it makes evidence very very bias.

Just sayin'

The Bible .. Old Testament (or Torah) doesn't say it was a global flood.. The word used is eretz.. land.. You can see it over and over again.. There was famine in eretz.. NOT global famine. The Jewish sages weren't stupid.

The flood waters came from snowmelt in the Zagros Mountains and heavy spring rains.

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually, I was replying to another’s view, who was asking the same question. I was supporting her.

And in doing so, acting like the question hadn't been answered.

But, FYI, I found your links of the yeast cells interesting! Thanks...I’ll see what other research is available.

Lol....you ignored it when it was first posted to you and now all you have to say is that it's "interesting"? It's exactly what you've been challenging us to present...the evolution of new functional genetic sequences. (And to be honest, it's a rather silly challenge because that sort of thing is as common as rain....I mean, where else do you think genetic sequences come from?)

One reason I’m so skeptical, is because of articles such as this:
Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Even the author of the piece eventually admitted it wasn’t really evolution, in the comments section.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of "genetic information", and is irrelevant anyway since just yesterday I gave you a very good example of the observed evolution of multicellularity.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Piece of evidence? So what?!?!?

There has been evidence of floods all over the world caused by natural local causes, like tsunamis,
and river floods, but nothing comparable to the Biblical Flood in timing and extent described. The ship involved was virtually impossible to be built as sea worthy by the technology of a Bronze Age people.

First a person has to differentiate between the first flood and the flood of Noah's.

 

[ecco]

Actually, I was replying to another’s view, who was asking the same question. I was supporting her.

But, FYI, I found your links of the yeast cells interesting! Thanks...I’ll see what other research is available.

One reason I’m so skeptical, is because of articles such as this:
Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Even the author of the piece eventually admitted it wasn’t really evolution, in the comments section.

Perhaps you can tell us what the article is about.

 

[shunyadragon]

At least highlight / explain with reasonable evidence the steps evolutionary processes took to construct such differentiated anatomy of metazoan creatures! How does the genetic code increase the de novo information to build these parts?

I guess that's what you meant, right?

Rainbows are not a coherent response with objective verifiable evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

First a person has to differentiate between the first flood and the flood of Noah's.

Than please make the differentiation.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, not the information needed for new body features! Anatomy, etc.

yes it has by objective verifiable scientific evidence.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Than please make the differentiation.

The difference between the first flood and the flood of Noah's.
Is the first flood of water took place way before the flood of Noah's and before Adam and Eve came to be.

Now according to the bible/ scriptures, there's
3 Earth ages.
There's the first earth, is where the first flood happened, unto which lived the dinosaurs.

And the second earth age, which we are now in, is when the flood of Noah's happen.

And the third earth age. Will come at the coming of Christ Jesus when he sets up his kingdom here on earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is the first flood of water took place way before the flood of Noah's and before Adam and Eve came to be.

There's the first earth, is where the first flood happened, unto which lived the dinosaurs.

There is no record of a world flood at the time of the dinosaurs.

And the second earth age, which we are now in, is when the flood of Noah's happen.

We have no evidence for a flood described as the flood at the time of described as Noah age.

 

[Faithofchristian]

There is no record of a world flood at the time of the dinosaurs.



We have no evidence for a flood described as the flood at the time of described as Noah age.

You may not have the evidence according to man.
But my evidence is according to what my God has given within the bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

You may not have the evidence according to man. But my evidence is according to what my God has given within the bible.

This clarifies the grounds for the disagreement. Yes, I am a geologist, and I have been around the world and know the record of the strata for the whole world, and of course, I go by the objective verifiable evidence of science. That is the bottom line.

 

[Faithofchristian]

This clarifies the grounds for the disagreement. Yes, I am a geologist, and I have been around the world and know the record of the strata for the whole world, and of course, I go by the objective verifiable evidence of science. That is the bottom line.

Let's for say, that I went by man's evidence on all things.
Now the question is, Why would I even want the bible
So either I follow what is written within the bible or I just throw the bible out.

But as a Christian to go by the bible, rather than by man's teachings

alot of people including man's teachings have no clue or idea about the first earth age. This includes alot of Christians. that are taught about the first earth age. All because it goes against what they have been taught by man's teachings also.

All they see is the here and now, no concept about the first earth age.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's for say, that I went by man's evidence on all things.
Now the question is, Why would I even want the bible
So either I follow what is written within the bible or I just throw the bible out.

But as a Christian to go by the bible, rather than by man's teachings

alot of people including man's teachings have no clue or idea about the first earth age. This includes alot of Christians. that are taught about the first earth age. All because it goes against what they have been taught by man's teachings also.

All they see is the here and now, no concept about the first earth age.

I will not go for moving the goal posts to '. . . man's evidence on all things.' I will stick with the subject of the geologic history of the earth as known by objective verifiable evidence.

There is objective verifiable evidence in the strata for billions of years of history of the earth in many ages. Some places on earth this strata is continuous without interruption.