Flood Evidences — revised

[Dan From Smithville]

“Around 90 per cent of Siberian mammoth tusks – more than 60 tonnes a year – end up in China or Hong Kong...”

Who are the hunters of rare mammoth tusks in Russia?

(No woo-woo site)

This is just those in Siberia! Every year! Consistently, apparently.

(Sad that greed is destroying a proper scientific examination of these sites.)

Why? You would just deny any findings and make up your own woo. Why wait? Go straight to the woo.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Around 90 per cent of Siberian mammoth tusks – more than 60 tonnes a year – end up in China or Hong Kong...”

Who are the hunters of rare mammoth tusks in Russia?

(No woo-woo site)

This is just those in Siberia! Every year! Consistently, apparently.

(Sad that greed is destroying a proper scientific examination of these sites.)

If you want to believe an ancient mythology that has not one shred of supporting evidence, then do so. But why all the effort to get everyone else to ignore evidence and reason and believe for no reason? It is not like our acceptance of evidence has had any effect on your belief. It is not like the mountain of evidence that exists stating no flood has caused you to think about it.

I understand that you cannot buck your system and that there are penalties for even hinting that you might be, but we are not part of your system. Even as a Christian, I do not have to believe an allegory as true without question in order to be a Christian. I don't try to convince others to shut their eyes and ignore evidence. I don't fabricate or grasp desperately at the least little straw that might save me so that everyone will have to believe in a global flood.

What is the point for your actions? Is it to curry favor with your group? I have to wonder at how hard you are trying and if that means that somewhere in your mind, is some doubt.

 

[sooda]

“Around 90 per cent of Siberian mammoth tusks – more than 60 tonnes a year – end up in China or Hong Kong...”

Who are the hunters of rare mammoth tusks in Russia?

(No woo-woo site)

This is just those in Siberia! Every year! Consistently, apparently.

(Sad that greed is destroying a proper scientific examination of these sites.)

Mammoth - a prehistoric elephant | DinoAnimals.com
Animals | DinoAnimals.commammoth-mammuthus-a-prehistoric-elephant
Mammoth (Mammuthus) – a prehistoric elephantThe mammoth – 12 tons of weight, 4 meters (13 ft) of height at shoulders, and 5 meters (16 ft) long tusks that could have scared off many predators but were used mostly for unearthing plants from the frozen ground.

 

[sooda]

I notice that the material at the end of your link points to climate change and over hunting as the reason for the extinction of mammoths. No mention that all of them were wiped out in a global flood or that all the tusks come from mammoths that died the same day.

The Mammoths didn't all die on the same day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Mammoths didn't all die on the same day.

Of course not. It is desperate grasping to shore up a demand that something be believed is true when there is no reason for believing it that way.

 

[sooda]

I notice that the material at the end of your link points to climate change and over hunting as the reason for the extinction of mammoths. No mention that all of them were wiped out in a global flood or that all the tusks come from mammoths that died the same day.

The last mammoths died out just 3600 years ago...but they ...
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-last-mammoths-died-out-just-3600-years-ago-but-th-5896262
We usually think of woolly mammoths as purely Ice Age creatures. But while most did indeed die out 10,000 years ago, one tiny population endured on isolated Wrangel Island until 1650 BCE.

 

[sooda]

The last mammoths died out just 3600 years ago...but they ...
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-last-mammoths-died-out-just-3600-years-ago-but-th-5896262
We usually think of woolly mammoths as purely Ice Age creatures. But while most did indeed die out 10,000 years ago, one tiny population endured on isolated Wrangel Island until 1650 BCE.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I notice that the material at the end of your link points to climate change and over hunting as the reason for the extinction of mammoths. No mention that all of them were wiped out in a global flood or that all the tusks come from mammoths that died the same day.

Well, they can’t admit that, can they?
They can’t ignore the evidence (like they’d prefer), since greed has revealed the extent of Mammoth habitation in the far North! (And, no, not all are found in the Permafrost, as I have stated.)

Since science can’t ignore it now, they have to arrive at some natural explanation (which they conclude they don’t know)...they just can’t allow any supernatural explanation (I.e., the Bible’s account of the Flood) to have any credibility!
That would destroy the modern foundations of science!

So, they’ll just keep saying, “We don’t know how all the evidence correlates together.” (Which is the ‘accepted’ explanation.) And you’ll keep believing it. What sheep you and the others are.

Lol.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

tusks.....were used mostly for unearthing plants from the frozen ground.

Right! Herds of Mammoths numbering into the hundreds of thousands in Siberia, alone, subsisting on scrawny plants in ‘frozen ground’!

“Authorities estimate that 500,000 tonnes of mammoth tusks—known as "ice ivory"—are buried here.”

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-siberia-chinese-demand-prehistoric-tusks.html

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you want to believe an ancient mythology that has not one shred of supporting evidence, then do so. But why all the effort to get everyone else to ignore evidence and reason and believe for no reason? It is not like our acceptance of evidence has had any effect on your belief. It is not like the mountain of evidence that exists stating no flood has caused you to think about it.

I understand that you cannot buck your system and that there are penalties for even hinting that you might be, but we are not part of your system. Even as a Christian, I do not have to believe an allegory as true without question in order to be a Christian. I don't try to convince others to shut their eyes and ignore evidence. I don't fabricate or grasp desperately at the least little straw that might save me so that everyone will have to believe in a global flood.

What is the point for your actions? Is it to curry favor with your group? I have to wonder at how hard you are trying and if that means that somewhere in your mind, is some doubt.

Lol.

How did thousands of these mammoths, not just skeletons but with flesh, get under the permafrost to begin with?

Think about it, if you’re willing.

 

[sooda]

Right! Herds of Mammoths numbering into the hundreds of thousands in Siberia, alone, subsisting on scrawny plants in ‘frozen ground’!

“Authorities estimate that 500,000 tonnes of mammoth tusks—known as "ice ivory"—are buried here.”

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-siberia-chinese-demand-prehistoric-tusks.html

Wooly Mammoths routinely foraged in the permafrost.. and they didn't all die at once.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you want to believe an ancient mythology that has not one shred of supporting evidence....

Uh...the OP presented several.

 

[Audie]

Lol.

How did thousands of these mammoths, not just skeletons but with flesh, get under the permafrost to begin with?

Think about it, if you’re willing.

Thousands? Last time it was millions.
And why arent they all intact, instead of only
a tiny fraction that are frozen carcasses?
Well over 99 percent, there are just some bones.
No daisies.

Since you have this all figured out, tell us bow
they managed to emerge from the permafrost,
thaw and get chewed on, then get back underground
and refreeze?

None have been found that are not decayed and
or scavenged.

Itchin' ears is eager to hear from you on this!

ETA... when permafrost melts, it does not just go back to
how it was before.

thawing permafrost - Google Search:

 

[Audie]

Uh...the OP presented several.

the op was a gish from a a creosite

That is only evidence of a paucity of evidence.

 

[Audie]

Mammoth 'Butchered' by Ancient Man

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Thousands? Last time it was millions.
And why arent they all intact, instead of only
a tiny fraction that are frozen carcasses?
Well over 99 percent, there are just some bones.
No daisies.

Since you have this all figured out, tell us bow
they managed to emerge from the permafrost,
thaw and get chewed on, then get back underground
and refreeze?

None have been found that are not decayed and
or scavenged.

Itchin' ears is eager to hear from you on this!

ETA... when permafrost melts, it does not just go back to
how it was before.

thawing permafrost - Google Search:

You didn't answer my question. How did Mammoths -- some intact -- get underneath the permafrost to begin with

 

[Audie]

You didn't answer my question. How did Mammoths -- some intact -- get underneath the permafrost to begin with

You are a fine one to complain of others not answering,

And as you know so much more than I, you could
explain how it is that ALL fossils, everywhere, desert,
prairie, jungle, ALL are buried! In solid ground, or rock!

How did they get inside rocks? What one mechanism
explains all of them, be it mudstone, limestone, clay,
sandstone, volcanic ash, gravel, ferns, dinosaurs, people,
fish and ripple marks, raindrop craters, river beds, entire
landscapes buried one under another under another under
another, down thousands of feet?

One event that did it all! Prease exprain it!


And as you are soo educated in geology this should
be no prob.

Now, for a amateur like me, I'd have to rely on
looking up a resesrch paper on a particular site,
and see what the scientists on the site said about
that particular place.

Of course I dont know how everything that got buried
in the arctic got buried. I am not a crackpot.

Now, to the q you have dodged over and over.

Explain how all those mammoths buried in
permafrost get to the surface, thaw, rot and get
chewed up, and then get reburied and refrozen?

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps you dont understand the principle of falsification.

Um....of course he doesn't. @Hockeycowboy has made it abundantly clear that "something that would falsify the Biblical flood" absolutely cannot exist. In both this thread and his last one, anytime a potential problem or bit of contrary evidence was brought up, he did one of two things....he either ignored it or fell back on "God did that part".

And that brings me back, once again, to a question he's dodged every time I've asked it: What's the point of these threads?

If it's to try and make a case that the flood is empirically supported, he apparently doesn't appreciate how invoking "God did that" whenever he encounters a problem runs counter to that purpose.

 

[Audie]

Um....of course he doesn't. @Hockeycowboy has made it abundantly clear that "something that would falsify the Biblical flood" absolutely cannot exist. In both this thread and his last one, anytime a potential problem or bit of contrary evidence was brought up, he did one of two things....he either ignored it or fell back on "God did that part".

And that brings me back, once again, to a question he's dodged every time I've asked it: What's the point of these threads?

If it's to try and make a case that the flood is empirically supported, he apparently doesn't appreciate how invoking "God did that" whenever he encounters a problem runs counter to that purpose.

Maybe the purpose for a creo is to practice what they
do to crush an inquiring young mind's curiosity.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe the purpose for a creo is to practice what they
do to crush an inquiring young mind's curiosity.

Who knows? I also frequently wonder whether the creationists in these forums actually think they're doing well in the debates and representing their faith in a positive manner.

But I guess if they're self-delusional about science and their understanding of it, they're probably the same in other areas too.