Flood Evidences — revised

[Subduction Zone]

How ironic. @Hockeycowboy just gave me an "optimistic" rating on whether he could learn what is and what is not evidence or understand the scientific method.

He should have a bit of faith in himself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How ironic. @Hockeycowboy just gave me an "optimistic" rating on whether he could learn what is and what is not evidence or understand the scientific method.

He should have a bit of faith in himself.

Indeed. @Hockeycowboy just gave me the "creative" rating when I suggested to him that now that @People_Lack_Integrity has clarified what he meant, why he can't move past the misunderstanding and actually address the points raised instead of pretending to have won the argument because of an unfortunate chosen grammatical construct.


I noticed in the past also that he seems to think that clicking a rating button (inappropriately) is a proper substitute for an actual well thought out response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed. @Hockeycowboy just gave me the "creative" rating when I suggested to him that now that @People_Lack_Integrity has clarified what he meant, why he can't move past the misunderstanding and actually address the points raised instead of pretending to have won the argument because of an unfortunate chosen grammatical construct.


I noticed in the past also that he seems to think that clicking a rating button (inappropriately) is a proper substitute for an actual well thought out response.

It is never wise to abuse the rating system. First, it is against forum rules and could get one in trouble. Second, it only aids the statistics of the person one is arguing with. And last, it can cause a good deal of laughter to be had at the rater's expense.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

Indeed. @Hockeycowboy just gave me the "creative" rating when I suggested to him that now that @People_Lack_Integrity has clarified what he meant, why he can't move past the misunderstanding and actually address the points raised instead of pretending to have won the argument because of an unfortunate chosen grammatical construct.
I noticed in the past also that he seems to think that clicking a rating button (inappropriately) is a proper substitute for an actual well thought out response.

Indeed. I find this guy incredibly dishonest. He doesn't even read my rebuttals, he just looks for something he can either grammatically attack, or claim he's a victim of ad hominem. He doesn't even attempt to rebut any of the actual responses. I took quite a bit of time replying to his "evidence" post and he picked out two things and strawman'd them both. He's not even worth debating because he won't engage with any integrity.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

PLI, you said “all archaeologists in the world”…(I think you said it twice, actually)…. That means “every single archaeologist” !

Then it seemed you had read through the lines of evidence I provided (because you began quoting them), yet you stated there wouldn’t be enough water to cover Mt Everest. That’s another straw man.
And now, you’re questioning my honesty? That’s rich.

You are very dishonest. I clarified what I meant and you are still stuck on it. At this point, that's your problem, not mine, but you aren't fairly representing my actual point and now refusing to accept my clarification. All you are doing is sidestepping the actual point. You casually dismissed hundreds of Archaeologists around the world as "they must be wrong" both today and in the past. That's not something you can do so casually without actually backing up why you don't believe them with evidence. Everyone here can see what you are doing. You are throwing up dishonest distractions to get around answering this point. So either answer it and have some integrity, or we're done.

Lastly, again, you are being incredibly dishonest because you are the one that stated and I quote: "It’s been determined that if the Earth was smoothed out like a billiard ball, the present water in all the ocean and lake basins would cover the planet to a depth of 2.5 miles! More than enough...." I stated, "The highest mountain on earth is Mount Everest which is 29,029 feet above sea level. Converted to miles that would be 5.5 miles (rounded) (1 Mile = 5,280 Feet), so no...2.5 miles worth of water wouldn't cover it." This isn't in any way a strawman. You claimed directly that the water beneath the surface of the earth could cover the planet to a depth of 2.5 Miles, enough to cover the planet, including all the tallest mountains. Yet the tallest is 5.5 miles, so your 2.5 miles would not be "more than enough". Stop being dishonest, claiming strawmen where there are none, actually reply directly to my posts and quote what I said, or we're done here.

I've encountered some dishonest christians in my time, but you sir...are a special kind of dishonest. I mean, everything is posted here and you outright deny saying things and misrepresent everything as if it's not posted here already for everyone to read. It's truly astonishing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh no! Not this dead horse again

Sorry. I thought you were talking about a different dead horse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another straw man.
Earlier in another thread you tried to deny what you yourself wrote, and when pointed out, you ignored it; so what do you think that indicates? It doesn’t bolster your credibility… does it?

And BTW, the Flood had two water sources, not just “rain.”

What is this straw man you are claiming?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry. I thought you were talking about a different dead horse.

I have no idea what you are talking about Does that dead horse even exist?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! I’m so impressed!

How??!

Since the Event cooled the Earth’s atmosphere, more so especially in the extreme northern & southern latitudes where the fresh water froze creating the existing permafrost , encasing all those animals within it (not ‘on top’ of the surface — within it) thereby causing the last Ice Age!
Talk about ignoring evidence.

How would the collapse of a water canopy surrounding the earth lead to a cooling of the atmosphere? The latent heat released from such an event would boil the water and that of the oceans.

This speculated collapse of a speculated canopy would have resulted in the annihilation of life on earth including that on the ark.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no idea what you are talking about Does that dead horse even exist?

Nothing worth elaborating on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't recall if I have ever seen anyone actually attempt to to address the continuity of civilizations issue. When pointed out, it usually just gets ignored.

Possibly the civilizations in places like Egypt and China were wiped out by a flood and then recreated in their entirety following the flood so that they were exactly like they were pre-flood. But that doesn't make sense either. Why have a flood at all, if recreating the very reason for the flood was part of the agenda?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't recall if I have ever seen anyone actually attempt to to address the continuity of civilizations issue. When pointed out, it usually just gets ignored.

Possibly the civilizations in places like Egypt and China were wiped out by a flood and then recreated in their entirety following the flood so that they were exactly like they were pre-flood. But that doesn't make sense either. Why have a flood at all, if recreating the very reason for the flood was part of the agenda?

Aron Ra did a whole series on how we know that there was no flood of Noah. That was one of his videos. It shows how almost every source out there refutes the Flood myth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aron Ra did a whole series on how we know that there was no flood of Noah. That was one of his videos. It shows how almost every source out there refutes the Flood myth.

I was thinking of any flood supporters that have tried to defend it when it is brought up. As I recall, most just ignore that particular piece of evidence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Mt Everest is older than humanity.

You do not seem to be aware that geology disagrees with your "observation".

Why is that, in your opinion?

Not all geologists deny the Flood. Do they?

But the majority prefer to maintain an a priori stance that many times doesn’t support the empirical evidence.
I’ve just been discussing one . And the Himalayan Range is not the only Range that fits the observations I’ve posited.

For some reason (which does not escape me, I know the reasoning behind it), naturalistic models have to be accepted, rather than support a supernatural event outlined in the Bible. Even if the event fits the evidence better.

That’s why there are some questions in geology, where the answer is “We don’t know.” Fine.

I wish the field of Biology would accept that answer…..but they can’t. You know why? Because unlike geology, where there can be many different causal explanations of the evidence, in biology there are only TWO ways that vastly differing organisms could have originated: through mindless naturalistic processes, or through an Intelligent Mind.

So employed mainstream biologists are not allowed to accede that even one single biological discovery originated from an intelligent source...if anyone would acknowledge, “No, no natural, step-guided processes can build such a system,” they’d lose their jobs, have lost their jobs; that leaves only one cause....and that is just anathema to the current ideology that has infiltrated (infested?) science.

So what do we hear? Even with the most mystifying of biological integration — such as the observed symbiosis between unrelated organisms, or even the parts of molecular machinery in cells — without any attempt to provide concrete evidence supporting its origin, we only hear suppositions...guesses...like “probably”, or “more than likely”, or “must have”. And then the statement, “isn’t evolution wonderful?” That’s the realm of philosophy, paraded as truth.

@Subduction Zone said in another post, ‘creationists...tend to be cowardly.’ (Or something similar.)
Actually, the opposite is more accurate. IMO. The one taking the unpopular stance, with supporting evidence, and willing to face derision by going against the mainstream POV, is exhibiting more courage, than the one toeing the line.


Have a good evening.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What is this straw man you are claiming?

About the water needed to cover Mt Everest. It is discussed in the list of evidence I posted — all opposers have to do is just read it. I’m tired of constantly having to go over that particular item.... it’s a strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not all geologists deny the Flood. Do they?

But the majority prefer to maintain an a priori stance that many times doesn’t support the empirical evidence.
I’ve just been discussing one . And the Himalayan Range is not the only Range that fits the observations I’ve posited.

For some reason (which does not escape me, I know the reasoning behind it), naturalistic models have to be accepted, rather than support a supernatural event outlined in the Bible. Even if the event fits the evidence better.

That’s why there are some questions in geology, where the answer is “We don’t know.” Fine.

I wish the field of Biology would accept that answer…..but they can’t. You know why? Because unlike geology, where there can be many different causal explanations of the evidence, in biology there are only TWO ways that vastly differing organisms could have originated: through mindless naturalistic processes, or through an Intelligent Mind.

So employed mainstream biologists are not allowed to accede that even one single biological discovery originated from an intelligent source...if anyone would acknowledge, “No, no natural, step-guided processes can build such a system,” they’d lose their jobs, have lost their jobs; that leaves only one cause....and that is just anathema to the current ideology that has infiltrated (infested?) science.

So what do we hear? Even with the most mystifying of biological integration — such as the observed symbiosis between unrelated organisms, or even the parts of molecular machinery in cells — without any attempt to provide concrete evidence supporting its origin, we only hear suppositions...guesses...like “probably”, or “more than likely”, or “must have”. And then the statement, “isn’t evolution wonderful?” That’s the realm of philosophy, paraded as truth.

@Subduction Zone said in another post, ‘creationists...tend to be cowardly.’ (Or something similar.)
Actually, the opposite is more accurate. IMO. The one taking the unpopular stance, with supporting evidence, and willing to face derision by going against the mainstream POV, is exhibiting more courage, than the one toeing the line.


Have a good evening.

Pretty much all real scientist do so. There are a couple of charlatans out there.

Why would you expect everyone to agree? There will always be some loons, idiots, liars, and just cray people out there. What matters is if they can support their work and there do not appear to be any Flood believers that can find any scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Once again to even have evidence one needs a testable model. That means that there has to be a reasonable test that could possibly refute it if the hypothesis was wrong.

So when you have a model the question "What possible reasonable test could refute it?" is extremely important. It tells us if the person forming the model is doing science or is just making a bogus hand waving explanation. It tells us if you have evidence or merely a an ad hoc explanation.

You do not seem to understand that there is no evidence that any species arose from an "intelligent source" so no one takes such claims seriously. You should be asking yourself why creation "scientists" cannot follow the scientific method. Why can't they find any evidence for their beliefs?

By the way, it is not a mater of biologists not being allowed. guess what that is, that is a strawman argument at best. The problem is once again that there is no evidence for your beliefs. So why accept what is obviously myth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

About the water needed to cover Mt Everest. It is discussed in the list of evidence I posted — all opposers have to do is just read it. I’m tired of constantly having to go over that particular item.... it’s a strawman.

Your list was refuted a long time ago. It is worthless. You need to support your claims properly. Otherwise people will apply proper logic to your claims, that leads you to claiming "strawman" when the problem is that you refuse to provide a proper model.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

About the water needed to cover Mt Everest. It is discussed in the list of evidence I posted — all opposers have to do is just read it. I’m tired of constantly having to go over that particular item.... it’s a strawman.

There is no evidence that the mountains of today were not there 5,000, 10,000 or several million of years ago. It is not a straw man to point out that in order to cover the tallest, would require over five miles of water. From there, the necessary volume in cubic kilometers can be estimated. The estimate nullifies a number of flood claims.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are throwing up dishonest distractions to get around answering this point. So either answer it and have some integrity, or we're done.

Please!


The. Answer. Is. Discussed. &. Defended. In. The. List. Of . Evidences. Posted.!


Did you read them? No, apparently.

I addressed the issue — the straw man — in #5 & #7.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One other point worth noting regarding the mountains and the claims of Genesis. Who measured the depth of the water over the mountains? How did they know they were over the mountains in order to measure it? I don't recall mention of the ark being equipped with sonar or radar.

I suppose people can always appeal to magic. Of course, that appeal opens up more questions. But then all the so called answers in support of floodism opens up a multitude of questions.