Flood Evidences — revised

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Not only that, there is massive evidence that they have been here for millions of years, at least in the case of the Himalayas. I love the "they don't look old" arguments when they come from people that have no clue as to how the mountains formed so they also have no clue as to what a young or old mountain would look like. Though there are folds in mountains as part of the uplift that is only part of the mountain building process. Many beds that make up mountains are still relatively flat all the way up, indicating that uplift and later erosion was what formed most of them. Just for fun I may check out the geology of Everest again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Unfortunately, all of your list has been refuted multiple times and does not hold up under any scrutiny. Don't take it badly. No Floodism claim has ever stood up to scrutiny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Yes, a long time ago. There is no need to go back to failed arguments. You still have no evidence. Let me help you:


Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

I can find quite a few other sources that say essentially the same thing. Tell us your scientific hypothesis. What is the testable model that you based your claims upon?

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

Physic is not a long suit for creos.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I got to your counter-arguments....

Millions of animals in permafrost has not been discovered....only a couple hundred,

And just how much of the land & muck, from Siberia & Alaska, has been dug up? Based on the frequency of how often animals have been found, the number is extrapolated.
Over the past years, ships have already dredged up from the Bering and North Seas, tons and tons of Mammoth tusks, alone.

One example:
The watery grave of Europe's monsters

It's also notable that none of the animals I've found are dated from the time of the flood

Even respected scientists have found that Carbon-14 dating is riddled w/ inaccuracies...

Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot

ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING (Published 1990)

We can be fairly confident that, no matter what date they arrive at, nothing will coincide in support of the Biblical Deluge!

I’m well aware of science’s agenda, only to support naturalistic processes.

I guess you are just pretending that the flood legends that predate the biblical text don't exist? Or that the dates are wrong? More likely that your flood myth was plagiarized from these other flood myths, such as the Sumerian Eridu Genesis (Even the name was stolen)

Of course they exist! That’s part of the evidence...especially from those cultures that existed or are existing in dry, arid environments, and without contact or influence from River-based cultures.

“Plagiarized”? But the Biblical account just happened to include an Ark vessel w/ just the right ratios. Yeah, right.

And you didn’t comment on the tests performed on the Ark’s hull ratios, by the South Korean-based KRISO, spearheaded by Dr. Seok Won Hong

You couldn't be more uneducated on this subject. Erosion actually creates the mountains we see today and if they were "relatively young formation", they would be more jagged and erratic than how they appear today.

Certain ranges, are...extremely! The Rockies, Andes, and others.
Not all, though; some are very old....Myo. Byo even. All don’t need to be. Just one , and it actually seems there are several.

We might as well include the lack of erosion the seems to be missing from the Grand Canyon. Where did the Colorado River put it? Very little is found, where there should actually be 4.17 trillion meters of sediments, deposited nearby.

Don’t present another strawman, I beg ya! I’m not saying the GC strata was laid down by the Flood. (I’m not a YEC.) But the Flood cut through them!

Chinese Characters and Genesis,

The author of the page, states (about the Chinese character 8, included in denoting the ship Chinese character): “I have my own hypothesis...”
Of course.




Have a good evening.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, a long time ago. There is no need to go back to failed arguments. You still have no evidence. Let me help you:


Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

I can find quite a few other sources that say essentially the same thing. Tell us your scientific hypothesis. What is the testable model that you based your claims upon?

Tell this to lawyers and judges, that all the evidence used that ‘can’t be falsified,’ must be thrown out.

Lol.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Unfortunately, all of your list has been refuted multiple times and does not hold up under any scrutiny. Don't take it badly. No Floodism claim has ever stood up to scrutiny.

Are Counter-arguments, refutations?

Not at all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I guess I need to post this again:


How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell this to lawyers and judges, that all the evidence used that ‘can’t be falsified,’ must be thrown out.

Lol.

LOL! That is a reading comprehension fail on your part. It is not the evidence that needs to be falsifiable. It is the model. Where did I ever say that the evidence needs to be falsified?

Instead of using snark when you are terribly wrong you should be asking questions to clarify the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I got to your counter-arguments....


And just how much of the land & muck, from Siberia & Alaska, has been dug up? Based on the frequency of how often animals have been found, the number is extrapolated.
Over the past years, ships have already dredged up from the Bering and North Seas, tons and tons of Mammoth tusks, alone.

One example:
The watery grave of Europe's monsters



Even respected scientists have found that Carbon-14 dating is riddled w/ inaccuracies...

Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot

ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING (Published 1990)

We can be fairly confident that, no matter what date they arrive at, nothing will coincide in support of the Biblical Deluge!

I’m well aware of science’s agenda, only to support naturalistic processes.



Of course they exist! That’s part of the evidence...especially from those cultures that existed or are existing in dry, arid environments, and without contact or influence from River-based cultures.

“Plagiarized”? But the Biblical account just happened to include an Ark vessel w/ just the right ratios. Yeah, right.

And you didn’t comment on the tests performed on the Ark’s hull ratios, by the South Korean-based KRISO, spearheaded by Dr. Seon Won Hong



Certain ranges, are...extremely! The Rockies, Andes, and others.
Not all, though; some are very old....Myo. Byo even. All don’t need to be. Just one , and it actually seems there are several.

We might as well include the lack of erosion the seems to be missing from the Grand Canyon. Where did the Colorado River put it? Very little is found, where there should actually be 4.17 trillion meters of sediments, deposited nearby.

Don’t present another strawman, I beg ya! I’m not saying the GC strata was laid down by the Flood. (I’m not a YEC.) But the Flood cut through them!


The author of the page, states (about the Chinese character 8, included in denoting the ship Chinese character): “I have my own hypothesis...”
Of course.




Have a good evening.

Please bring up your nonsensical claims one at a time. The Ark was never shown to have "perfect dimensions". There is a bogus paper that pretends to be scientific out there. I do believe that it was commissioned by Ken Ham, though I do not think that I can prove that again. None of your sources appear to be valid science sources. The New York Times? Are you kidding me? If your claims are true they can be found in peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are Counter-arguments, refutations?

Not at all.

You can call them whatever you want, but the claims you list are busted.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Please bring up your nonsensical claims one at a time. The Ark was never shown to have "perfect dimensions". There is a bogus paper that pretends to be scientific out there. I do believe that it was commissioned by Ken Ham, though I do not think that I can prove that again. None of your sources appear to be valid science sources. The New York Times? Are you kidding me? If your claims are true they can be found in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Dude, I just report the news. People can reach their own conclusions. It seems you really have a problem with discussion, butting in where I wasn’t replying to you.

I was addressing the many counter-arguments presented to me, but you tell me to bring them up “one at a time.” ROFL.

It seems, as the past evidence reveals (do I need a model, lol), you almost always resort to belittling! The evidence in support of my claims seems to bother you so much, that I think you should just ignore what I post.

‘Cause this is a fruitless endeavor, a massive waste of my time...so from now on, that’s what I’m gonna do with you.

Although we have rarely agreed on anything, I wish you well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude, I just report the news. People can reach their own conclusions. It seems you really have a problem with discussion, butting in where I wasn’t replying to you.

I was addressing the many counter-arguments presented to me, but you tell me to bring them up “one at a time.” ROFL.

It seems, as the past evidence reveals (do I need a model, lol), you almost always resort to belittling! The evidence in support of my claims seems to bother you so much, that I think you should just ignore what I post.

‘Cause this is a fruitless endeavor, a massive waste of my time...so from now on, that’s what I’m gonna do with you.

Although we have rarely agreed on anything, I wish you well.

How is correction "belittling"? You need to make this less about your feelings. When you use nonscientific sources in a scientific debate you will get laughed at. Especially sources where you read only the titles and have no understanding of the subject matter at all.

If I tell a car mechanic that he is using a plunger improperly I will be laughed at no matter how many plumbers I cite as " evidence ".

Why don't you try to learn just a little? All you need are the basics and then you will be able to correct yourself more often than not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It's infuriating, isn't it.... spending time and energy with the best intentions, only to see it handwaved away like that in the most arrogant of ways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not all geologists deny the Flood. Do they?

Show me one geology paper published in a proper journal that argues for the mythical flood.

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

Your "observations" are fictional and imagined.
They don't come from geology. They come from intellectually dishonest bible thumpers.

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.

When the answer isn't known, then the answer is we don't know.
Not "god dun it".

I wish the field of Biology would accept that answer…..but they can’t.

There are plenty of things in biology which are unknown. If you would inform yourself properly, you wouldn't be saying such stupid things.

There is a reason why more biologists are still being trained and why biology research continues. It's because there is still more to learn. Meaning that there are plenty of things that are unknown.

You didn't think this through at all, did you?

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.

When have you shown that "an intelligent mind" is even an option?

Natural processes on the other hand, demonstrably exist.

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, there is no "atheist conspiracy" in biology.
In biology, just like in all other scientific fields, one is not allowed to make empty assertions without evidence and claim "magic occurred".

That is the only reason.

Come up with actual positive evidence for your claim and then you'll have something worth listening to.
Your religious assertions however, are of no interest to any science.

, “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.

If a geologist would claim a flat earth, he'ld lose his job to.
Or when an embryologist would argue for Stork Theory. He'ld lose his job to.

And rightfully so.

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.

Congratz on the combo points. You managed to, in a single paragraph, engage in the fallacy of the strawman, in pure denialism and then topped it off with complaining about scientific jargon and the intellectual honesty it is about.

Your apologist masters will be proud.

@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.

Says the guy who has just wasted another bunch of paragraphs complaining about conspiracies and other attempts at derailment instead of actually addressing the points and questions submitted.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your "observations" are fictional and imagined.
They don't come from geology. They come from intellectually dishonest bible thumpers.




When the answer isn't known, then the answer is we don't know.
Not "god dun it".




There are plenty of things in biology which are unknown. If you would inform yourself properly, you wouldn't be saying such stupid things.

There is a reason why more biologists are still being trained and why biology research continues. It's because there is still more to learn. Meaning that there are plenty of things that are unknown.

You didn't think this through at all, did you?



When have you shown that "an intelligent mind" is even an option?

Natural processes on the other hand, demonstrably exist.



No, there is no "atheist conspiracy" in biology.
In biology, just like in all other scientific fields, one is not allowed to make empty assertions without evidence and claim "magic occurred".

That is the only reason.

Come up with actual positive evidence for your claim and then you'll have something worth listening to.
Your religious assertions however, are of no interest to any science.



If a geologist would claim a flat earth, he'ld lose his job to.
Or when an embryologist would argue for Stork Theory. He'ld lose his job to.

And rightfully so.



Congratz on the combo points. You managed to, in a single paragraph, engage in the fallacy of the strawman, in pure denialism and then topped it off with complaining about scientific jargon and the intellectual honesty it is about.

Your apologist masters will be proud.



Says the guy who has just wasted another bunch of paragraphs complaining about conspiracies and other attempts at derailment instead of actually addressing the points and questions submitted.

Everything I posted, is accurate.
Evolution is, ultimately, in your eyes, the source of all the diversification we see. So, to you, “evolution dun it.”

Even asexual organisms evolving to reproduce sexually!
How fantastic to claim that, through as-yet-unknown natural mechanisms, an as-yet-unknown species, which produced offspring quite efficiently through asexual processes, would then evolve into genders, expending much more energy with much less return!

What a belief!
Oh that’s right, you don’t have beliefs …. It happened, so evolution musta dun it.

But to you, there are no supernatural sources. So I guess you think that all the RF members on here claiming to either speak or have experiences with their gods and spirit guides — quite a few, BTW — they are all lying or delusional, huh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything I posted, is accurate.
Evolution is, ultimately, in your eyes, the source of all the diversification we see. So, to you, “evolution dun it.”

Even asexual organisms evolving to reproduce sexually!
How fantastic to claim that, through as-yet-unknown natural mechanisms, an as-yet-unknown species, which produced offspring quite efficiently through asexual processes, would then evolve into genders, expending much more energy with much less return!

What a belief!
Oh that’s right, you don’t have beliefs …. It happened, so evolution musta dun it.

But to you, there are no supernatural sources. So I guess you think that all the RF members on here claiming to either speak or have experiences with their gods and spirit guides — quite a few, BTW — they are all lying or delusional, huh?

If it is accurate then why do you seem to never properly substantiate your claims? If I claim that Donald Trump lost the popular vote in both campaigns I can support that. And what makes you think that there is less return with sexual reproduction? Raw numbers are only part of story. Per reproductive cycle sexual organisms can adapt faster than asexual organisms. You appear to be using an argument from ignorance again. You keep forgetting that experts in the field have answered most of your objections.

And most important of all, why can't creation "scientists" find any scientific evidence at all for their beliefs? I place a large part of the blame on their obvious cowardice.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You keep forgetting that experts in the field have answered most of your objections.

You keep forgetting that they have to support naturalism, in every facet of evolution, despite the evidence.

No matter how much complexity is discovered, some process attributed to evolution will always be the cause.

But what you seem unwilling to recognize, is there are no “answers”…. it’s always “it must have happened this way…”, or “it’s likely that…”. (I’m speaking of the arrival of complex features.) That’s in the realm of philosophy, and guesswork.

As far as “finding evidence “… it is really all around us. And it was discussed years ago, by Paley.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep forgetting that they have to support naturalism, in every facet of evolution, despite the evidence.

No matter how much complexity is discovered, some process attributed to evolution will always be the cause.

But what you seem unwilling to recognize, is there are no “answers”…. it’s always “it must have happened this way…”, or “it’s likely that…”. That’s in the realm of philosophy, and guesswork.

As far as “finding evidence “… it is really all around us. And it was discussed years ago, by Paley.

No, you have that backwards. They do not have to support naturalism. They only need to find evidence for their claims. It is the creationist sites that say "You have to support these claims to publish here". They all have a Statement of Faith that people have to swear to. That does not exist in the world of science.

And if your myths were true there is no reason that we would not find evidence for them. The problem is as I said the cowardice of creation "scientists". To be a scientist one must put one's money where one's mouth is. One has to develop a testable hypothesis. And in case you forgot, events do not need to be repeatable, Only the observations of that event. Creationists cannot come up with a testable model.

By the way, that makes claims of creationists of "strawman arguments" when their beliefs are refuted false. One cannot claim that others used a strawman argument if one refuses to put a proper model out there. You force your opponent to do so and until you do come up with a model their refutation stands.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything I posted, is accurate.

As I explained in the post you are replying to, that is simply not the case.

Evolution is, ultimately, in your eyes, the source of all the diversification we see. So, to you, “evolution dun it.”

Evolution is a process which is inevitable when you have systems that reproduce with variation and are in competition with peers in an ever-changing habitat providing limited resources.

Also, 200 years worth of rigorous scientific study and scrutiny, culminating in a body of work of over 300.000 science papers on the topic... kind of dishonest to pretend that is the equivalent of just saying "evolution dun it", wouldn't you agree?

Even asexual organisms evolving to reproduce sexually!
How fantastic to claim that, through as-yet-unknown natural mechanisms, an as-yet-unknown species, which produced offspring quite efficiently through asexual processes, would then evolve into genders, expending much more energy with much less return!

Your ignorance on the topic, is not an argument against it.

But to you, there are no supernatural sources.

I don't know if there are no such sources.
Just like I don't know if there are no aliens abducting people.

I can only say that all those who have claimed that there ARE such things, have never been able to meet their burden of proof. Not even a little bit.

So why should I consider those claims?
They are indistinguishable from sheer imagination.

So I guess you think that all the RF members on here claiming to either speak or have experiences with their gods and spirit guides — quite a few, BTW — they are all lying or delusional, huh?

Delusional or just mistaken, yes.

I always start out assuming people are sincere in their beliefs, so I wouldn't call them liars.

How is that different from how YOU think of other believers that do NOT believe in YOUR religion?

What do you think about Tom Cruise who claims to be in touch with his inner Thetan, who's at the level of "Operating Thetan" in scientology? Do you think he is lying / delusional / mistaken?

I certainly don't think he is lying.
I do think he is very delusional or mistaken.

Likely, you think about the same.
So please, don't try to frame that as if I think "less" of RF believer members or whatever.

On ANY topic, whenever you have debate / discussion, there is disagreement. And when there is disagreement, it means you parties believe different things. By definition, both parties will think the other party is delusional or mistaken.

Why do you find it "insulting" or "offensive" when the topic happens to be religion?
That's at least how your last paragraph comes accross... why else would you add the "huh?" at the end and make sure you mention that there are a lot of believers on this forum?

This is quite hostile imo.