• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Flood Evidences — revised

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
No, we can observe fossils all through beds. And creationists cannot explain their deposition.
Allow me to demonstrate how silly the uniformitarian theory really is.
The Himialya is 5 miles high.
Therefore the Earth must have been 5 miles higher in radius.
Now answer me this insurmountable stupid question I am asking now.

If erosion, where did all this soil go?
Think, If the Earth was 10 miles whider, and erosion made it the size today, where is the rubble?

This is what I mean about insurmountable stupidity!
Atheists and Atheists scientists asks me, Where did all the water go!
Do you see what sillyness to assume the earth covered the Himalyas with water, and just as I wloud ask the same quaetion on if the Himalyas was shaped from erosion.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
There is no scientific evidence for the flood. That is why no serious scientists believe it. The problem is that you would need far more than just a "hin of catastrophism". You would need almost endless evidence to counter the existing evidence.

For example fossil on top of mountains are evidence against the flood. Not because they are found on top of the mountains, but because they are found all through the mountains and strata everywhere. Not only that they are sorted in a manner that cannot be explained by flood believers.

The uniform v catastrope things is so 19th century!

Anyone with a trace of education in geology
or even a trace of common sense will figure it
out that both things happen.
And that some places / times are more active than
others.
"Trace of" is way too much to ask of a creo, tho!

A hint of common sense tells most of us that
we dont know more brain surgery than the doctor,
more law than the lawyer, more plumbing than
the plumber, but somehow the creo knows more
geology and biology than any scientist on earth.

And they did not even have to study!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What scientific evidence do you want.
I tell you that the Mountains and oceans were created by this flood. I told you that the Nebular theory would lead to a clobal flood, as Kant prescribed and as science proved him to be correct.
You continue to refer to a flood that must be 5 miles covering the Earth, and I told you this was not what the Bible say!
You claim there was ancient mountains proving it to be billions of years old, and I asked if it could not be as a result of the flood that these mountains came into existance.
It is a fact that the Drakensberg and Magalies were shaped by a catastrophy, and not erosion, yet you dont even want to hear the word Catastrophy, even if the evidene is to be found in the last 3 tsunami's, earth quakes, Vulcano's etc.
Well, the reason why you dont want to hear the word "Catastrophy", is because this is what will force you to admit that the Bible is true, and science agrees to it.

And Atheists calls Christians close minded!

let me show you how I can get your blood to boill!
Catastrophy!
Catastrophy!
Catastrophy!
Catastrophy!
You don't even know what scientific evidence is. And you have is hand waving.

And we need to do this correctly. One point at a time.

Do you understand yet how you tried to cook Noah and his magic boat?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Allow me to demonstrate how silly the uniformitarian theory really is.
The Himialya is 5 miles high.
Therefore the Earth must have been 5 miles higher in radius.
Now answer me this insurmountable stupid question I am asking now.

If erosion, where did all this soil go?
Think, If the Earth was 10 miles whider, and erosion made it the size today, where is the rubble?

This is what I mean about insurmountable stupidity!
Atheists and Atheists scientists asks me, Where did all the water go!
Do you see what sillyness to assume the earth covered the Himalyas with water, and just as I wloud ask the same quaetion on if the Himalyas was shaped from erosion.
ROFLMAO!!

I think that I am arguing with a five year old.



That is not how mountains form. I am sorry, but you know nothing of any of the sciences. The Himalayas were formed when the Indian plate ran into the Eurasian plate.

But first we go over your trying to cook Noah and family.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
ROFLMAO!!

I think that I am arguing with a five year old.



That is not how mountains form. I am sorry, but you know nothing of any of the sciences. The Himalayas were formed when the Indian plate ran into the Eurasian plate.

But first we go over your trying to cook Noah and family.

Well, he got one thing right... "this insurmountable (sic)
stupid question."

That version of how mountains form will go right
in there with the one about how excess water from
the flood was wafted to Neptune. (where is shines
to this day as a warning beacon against incoming
rogue angels)
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Resorting to attacks, huh? I thought you'd be bigger than that. (You've proven otherwise, before.)
You won't find one quote from the Watchtower.
"Vastly exaggerated"? Right!
What attacks. It is true. Your publications and organizations claim things. Whether you used them or not is irrelevant and I did not claim you referenced it. Saying it must be true, may be sarcastic, but hardly an attack. You like to reach for things that are not there.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
What attacks. It is true. Your publications and organizations claim things. Whether you used them or not is irrelevant and I did not claim you referenced it. Saying it must be true, may be sarcastic, but hardly an attack. You like to reach for things that are not there.

You know the reasons for pretending it is an
attack. it is very dishonest, but, we've seen
it before, it comes as no shock.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, somewhat revised. You won't find buttercups mentioned (although if I remember correctly, that was one of several species discovered in the Berezhovka Mammoth's stomach.)

I'm in denial. That's funny.
Tell me... If you believe that the miracles in the Bible really didn't happen -- 'teaching aids', as you suggested -- why would Jesus accuse those skeptical Sadducees, 'You don't know the power of God'?
What I believe is not relevant. I am not claiming what I believe is valid to the point that I can use it as evidence of something just because I believe it. That is what you are doing. The discussion here is about the creationist assertion that the flood described in Genesis actually happened as it is described and the fact that there is no reason to consider that true based on the evidence.

Yes. You disregard, do not understand, misrepresent, mangle, malign, mistreat and deny all that is known about the flood. The Bible is a claim. Assuming it to be true and then trying to force evidence to fit it, is what you are doing. I admit, this is all you have, since following the evidence does not lead to the biblical flood.

I have not mentioned one thing about other miracles described in the Bible. My discussion has been confined to Genesis. Injecting claims I never made is false witness. Shame on you.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You know the reasons for pretending it is an
attack. it is very dishonest, but, we've seen
it before, it comes as no shock.
It is one of the first lines of defense when making preposterous assertions like a global flood. Seen it lots of times.

It is no surprise to me that it is most often strict interpreters that turn to dishonesty.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It is one of the first lines of defense when making preposterous assertions like a global flood. Seen it lots of times.

It is no surprise to me that it is most often strict interpreters that turn to dishonesty.

Let us list the reasons
-Christians are taught to expect attacks and mockery,
and to treasure it, invent it if need be, for lo, it
fulfilleth prophecy and, gets them pennies in heaven.

-it put them in the right, the other in the wrong; a
chap grab for the moral and intellectual high ground

-it is a way to dodge having to deal with that the
source material never comes from a respectable
source.

- (your turn)
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Both of your questions are answered in the link I provided, detailing Dr. Seon Hong's study.
I know your first question is answered.
Even if valid, all this means is that the writers either knew about ship construction or made some good observations. It is not evidence that the flood happened. By that logic. All well-designed boats and descriptions of boat designs that appear to be of good designs are evidence the flood happened. Is this the ridiculous claim you are making?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Let us list the reasons
-Christians are taught to expect attacks and mockery,
and to treasure it, invent it if need be, for lo, it
fulfilleth prophecy and, gets them pennies in heaven.

-it put them in the right, the other in the wrong; a
chap grab for the moral and intellectual high ground

-it is a way to dodge having to deal with that the
source material never comes from a respectable
source.

- (your turn)
It diverts the discussion. A person that is unfamiliar with this fallacious attack strategy is shifted off topic in order to defend against the absurd assertions. Even if you are experienced with it, you usually have to mention that the claims of attack are dishonest and this diverts discussion. It is the Swiss army knife of dishonesty, having so many uses at once.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, somewhat revised. You won't find buttercups mentioned (although if I remember correctly, that was one of several species discovered in the Berezhovka Mammoth's stomach.)
As detritus in the teeth and not a mouthful freshly grazed and that mammoth was rotting and not some entirely flash-frozen and preserved specimen. All you previously mentioned as solid evidence for a flood. Now you do not mention it. Seems you learned something.
I'm in denial. That's funny.
Tell me... If you believe that the miracles in the Bible really didn't happen -- 'teaching aids', as you suggested -- why would Jesus accuse those skeptical Sadducees, 'You don't know the power of God'?
I thought we were discussing your assertions about the global flood. Why are you wondering off topic to build this personal attack that has nothing to do with anything I said.

As a Christian, I am used to persecution. I should not be surprised.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Global Flood evidence:

***1.Vast herds of grazing animals, perhaps millions of them, discovered within the permafrost (called muck fields by some, due to the mud mixed in from previous melting), in the Alaskan and Yukon regions. In the Siberian permafrost, a few have been discovered upright, with food (some which only grows in temperate climates) discovered still unchewed in their mouths, like the Berezovka Mammoth. (They died instantly, not from a slow-moving ice age!)

http://www.amendez.com/Noahs Ark Articles/NAS Worldwide Mammal Massacre.pdf

The question is raised — and properly so: “How could a Global Flood cause such freezing temperatures?” Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere....the troposphere?...the mesosphere?...the stratosphere? The Bible doesn’t say, it is silent. (Maybe from all five.) But the waters existing above the Earth prior to the Flood, resulted in mild temperatures, and pleasantly warm.... similar to a greenhouse effect, worldwide. (That’s why Adam & Eve could go naked, and be very comfortable.) Yes, the Bible indicates there were seasons, but apparently mild ones.

All of that drastically changed, with the break in this vapor(?) / ice (?) canopy! Temperatures would drop suddenly!

***2.This project, completed by physics students of the University of Leicester, provides an interesting conclusion:
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’.

And this one:
Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes | Science | Smithsonian

Further information:
Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.
The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.


The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.

Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

***3.Coupled with that, the dimensions of the Ark, a 6-to-1 ratio of length to width, and 10-to-1 ratio of length to height, are exactly what is needed for a non-powered vessel of that size to maintain stability! Only in the last 2 centuries have ship builders recognized that these proportions are perfect for non-powered barge-like ships to be seaworthy. This is powerful evidence supporting a literal interpretation: How could Moses have known, in recording the event, that Noah was given such ideal dimensions? Fortunate guessing?

***4.The numerous Flood legends (exceeding 250, one anthropologist says near 1,000), that share many similarities, some strikingly so, that indicates a common source.



***5.Furthermore, the Bible indicates, in Psalms 104, that the Flood was the cause of Earth’s mountains reaching such great heights. (With the underground waters spewing upward, the land would, by necessity, settle downward.) This would mean the high mountainous ranges we have today, like the Alps, the Himalayas, the Andes, and others, did not exist before the Flood; they are relatively young in formation. Some were even underwater prior to the Flood — see #6. (Not that the rocks are young, but that the features they form, are new, geologically speaking. What do we see? We observe crisp, well-defined features! If these mountains were millions of years old, we would see weathered, rounded features, due to the extreme wind and other erosion forces that they constantly endure. But we don’t! (This evidence is the easiest of all the geological facts to see...yet to me the most overlooked.)

***6.[related to #5]The marine creatures discovered on the tops of many mountain ranges, even on Mt. Everest — gigantic clams, some measuring 5 feet or more across, found in the closed position, indicating (again) that these creatures experienced a catastrophic event, leading to their quick death. (Clams in natural death, die w/ their shells open.) All remain exposed....if they’re millions of years old, why aren’t they eroded, also? Because these particular ones died at the Flood!!

***7.Where did all the water go? Apparently, it’s still here, at the Earth. If we again take into account what Psalms 104 reveals — that it was the Flood that caused our current topography, the very high mountains and low valleys, then the Earth’s terrain was somewhat smoother than now. (And Genesis tells us, the highest mountain was covered by around 22 ft. of the water.) 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.....yet, scientists have discovered even more water in the Earth’s mantle, estimated to be almost 10 times as much as exists on our surface! So, that presents no obstacle!

***8.The Chinese character for "boat" comprises three radically different symbols: 'vessel', 'mouth' (representing a person), and the number ''8”. Why is this significant? Because there were 8 people who survived the Flood in the Ark. Some ancient Semitic person thought the Flood Event was worthy enough, to incorporate it into their language, helping others to remember the Chinese word for boat. They didn't have a Bible to get the idea from, and I doubt Moses knew any Chinese people, to get his writing from!

Are you of the mindset that, when reading about God causing a global Flood, you don’t think He’d use His power throughout other aspects of the event? Or afterwards? Let’s see what the Genesis account reveals: He brought the waters above and below to Earth’s surface....He gave Noah instructions on building the Ark, providing those ideal proportions....He brought the animals to Noah (No, Noah didn’t have to go get them, as some dishonestly purport.)....and He closed the door. Only those w/ closed minds would assume (want to, maybe?) that God’s power stopped there. Is He somehow incapable of protecting the occupants in the Ark, or the plant life underneath the waters? Does Jehovah God have to reveal / explain every aspect involved? If He brought the animal to Noah, is it too much of a stretch to believe that Jehovah redistributed them to their former locations after the Flood?

Jehovah God is not required to explain anything more to us....what we do know, the evidence, is enough to build faith in the account.

Another indirect line of evidence, as to why God would cause such a catastrophe, are the Greek, Roman, Hindu, Norse, etc., myths describing “gods” interacting w/ humans, having relations w/ women, and producing offspring. (Since most all myths have some kernel of truth, this common narrative between them, of gods having sex w/ human females & bearing children, must be it.) It parallels Genesis 6:1-4, and explains to some extent why Jehovah had to step in, to thwart the eventual subjugation of the human race into sex slavery. But these “myths” created after the event, have kept it living in the collective mind of the human race.
Is this going to be like the last time, where every time you were presented with a physical impossibility for a recent global flood, you went straight to "God did it"?

And did you ever get around to reading the accounts of 18th and 19th century Christian geologists who, after examining geological formations from around the world, had no choice but to conclude that the Biblical flood didn't happen?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Allow me to demonstrate how silly the uniformitarian theory really is.
The Himialya is 5 miles high.
Therefore the Earth must have been 5 miles higher in radius.
Now answer me this insurmountable stupid question I am asking now.

If erosion, where did all this soil go?
Think, If the Earth was 10 miles whider, and erosion made it the size today, where is the rubble?

This is what I mean about insurmountable stupidity!
Atheists and Atheists scientists asks me, Where did all the water go!
Do you see what sillyness to assume the earth covered the Himalyas with water, and just as I wloud ask the same quaetion on if the Himalyas was shaped from erosion.
Wait.....what? :confused:

Where did you get the idea that the Himalayas formed via erosion?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Even if valid, all this means is that the writers either knew about ship construction or made some good observations. It is not evidence that the flood happened. By that logic. All well-designed boats and descriptions of boat designs that appear to be of good designs are evidence the flood happened. Is this the ridiculous claim you are making?

It is pointless anyway. Like determining in court
that the accused could have driven a blue Honda,
if he had been there, when in fact he was in Macau
when the murder was in Modesto.

Once "flood" is disproved, as the age of polar ice
does, then what mighta couldda is irrelevant.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
As detritus in the teeth and not a mouthful freshly grazed and that mammoth was rotting and not some entirely flash-frozen and preserved specimen. All you previously mentioned as solid evidence for a flood. Now you do not mention it. Seems you learned something.
I thought we were discussing your assertions about the global flood. Why are you wondering off topic to build this personal attack that has nothing to do with anything I said.

As a Christian, I am used to persecution. I should not be surprised.



All of the mammoths are in varying stages of decay,
and most are fragmentary. Most were scavenged
before burial.

HOW exactly that could be, when all was "instantly"
killed then o'erwhelmed in "mucK" will not be explained,
though the triple backflips getting out of it may be
amusing. Or not.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
It is pointless anyway. Like determining in court
that the accused could have driven a blue Honda,
if he had been there, when in fact he was in Macau
when the murder was in Modesto.

Once "flood" is disproved, as the age of polar ice
does, then what mighta couldda is irrelevant.
Of course. It is another tactic to absorb the inane and ignorant. This is a fact. It is irrelevant. But it is a fact. So everything else must be true too.

Boats are used on water. The ark is a boat. The entire story is true. LOL! Logic Of the Lame.
 
Top